User talk:Rochambeau1783

Rochambeau1783, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rochambeau1783! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Carolina Amesty

Hello @Rochambeau1783. Please avoid including sensitive information in articles, especially when it is not relevant. Regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty, the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence or because it was difficult to substantiate them. I say this based on the official report that was published. For this article, it is preferred not to use the Orlando Sentinel as a reference source, especially when it is at the center of attacks against the individual in question. Wikipedia is not a platform for attacking a person or entity. It is not the place to express your personal opinions. Please include neutral information without political bias or the sole intention of causing harm. If you undo the latest edit again, I will file a formal complaint. Bilonio (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This information is published by the Orange County Jail. "This work was created by a government unit (including state, county, and municipal government agencies) of the U.S. state of Florida. It is a public record that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright and is therefore in the public domain in the United States."

The Orlando Sentinel has nothing to do with this photo.

I'm very concerned about your edits and this clear violation of WP:NPOV. Please stop arguing here and use the appropriate talk page BEFORE making large edits. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 20,000 Challenge

Feel free to put your articles up! There's also a US and Europe one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert for post-1992 American politics

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 10:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marion G. Wells Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marion G. Wells Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion G. Wells Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Doug Weller talk 10:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern Democrats has been nominated for deletion

Category:Southern Democrats has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luke Farley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate files

Please can you check if files exist before uploading duplicates, it clutters things and makes it hard to track file usage. Thanks Dylsss^(talk contribs) 05:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylsss Your photo is using inappropriate licensing and is nominated for deletion. Adding to article would be vandalism. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It uses the same licensing, if that photo is deleted, then the one you uploaded would also be deleted due to the same consensus because they are identical. Dylsss^(talk contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your photo to the DR as well. Dylsss^(talk contribs) 05:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't use the same licensing. The photo used was incorrectly licensed and has nothing to do with this photo. I believe your actions to be a possible WP:NPOV violation and your actions across multiple pages are potential WP:Harassment. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit disappointing that you would rather revert my changes to make a WP:POINT (fundamentally both images are exactly the same and I was just trying to centralize usage). And then accuse me of WP:NPOV (how?) and WP:Harassment (for centralizing usage of an image), is quite extreme. Dylsss^(talk contribs) 06:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright explanation

The image is copyrighted. You cannot keep adding it to articles. Nobody other than the original photographer can release it into the public domain or an acceptable license. This includes Trump, Vance, or any congressperson. The person who took the photos of Trump and Vance has told a user on Commons they do not want commercial use - that is a prohibited license and is not a free image. Stop adding that image to articles and edit warring to keep it in.

"Golden Age of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Golden Age of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Golden Age of America until a consensus is reached. guninvalid (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]