User talk:Wikiscribe

_

moved from userpage

Please excuse my error; I was reverted another user's blanked page, and got the wrong clickie before pasting and saving. The reverted text had no reference to you. DavidOaks (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Sorry for the slight on Jenna.. I couldn't help myself after seeing your contribs (I thought it was funny). I like Tera myself (yikes!). lol.

In any event, the last thing I want to do is be non-constructive. I know that people bring different views here as to what's appropriate but we of course need to deal with that in a mature manner and I can admit to deviating from that philosophy from time to time, especially concerning things that I'm passionate about or have interest in. Thanx for reaching out on my page and there's no doubt that given a mutual understanding between us, we should be able to work together smoothly.Taharqa (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bucketheads - "The Bomb"

Not according to Discogs, which is where I collate the discographies from. The Henry Street vinyl is indexed as a 1994 release. They could be wrong, of course, but considering how anal-retentive Discogs mods are on approving additions, I trust them more than I do AllMusicGuide. As for when it became a hit, it's irrelevant. Underground vinyls typically exist for months before any CD-single release and wouldn't hit the charts until then. --Pc13 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs.com is not a commercial site, it's a music database, with a moderators system that approves additions. And you used R4nt as a source, which is a blog and therefore actually unreliable. Also, the AllMusicGuide page about "The Bomb" doesn't even list the tracklisting for the original Henry Street Records release, but rather the CD-single from Big Beat Records which does not feature the original mix, only remixes that were made later. So if AllMusicGuide is basing the 1995 release year on that CD, how can I tell if they checked when the Henry Street 12" was actually released? --Pc13 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban stuff

There's another thread aaaaaaall the way up on WP:ANI about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy bans that you might want to look at.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

I've removed your talk page message to me. Read the quote from Hobbes on my page and then, should you choose, try it again rephrased. Meanwhile, I've removed the pointless sock notice on your userpage. I presume you don't want it there, though you may feel free to restore it if you do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post about deleting sock puppet posts on E1b1b

Concerning this, just to avoid any misunderstandings or waste of energy, I understand that new postings by known sock puppets, which are not yet part of an on-going discussion, can be deleted. This was not the intended subject of my posting to the admin William M Connolley. Cheers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy

Hey Scribe, concerning this edit I have never seen you edit the E1b1b article. That's kind of odd. I hope you are not trying to take advantage of my 1RR and general vulnerable status, or trying to draw me into an edit war so that you can have me blocked. If these are your intentions, it may not look good on your part. If a pattern of such editing behavior emerges, I will ask William Connolley to have a look at your editing. Just because I am on a 1RR doesn't mean you are above the law. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am confident that WMC will tell you WP:assume good faith also don't threaten me--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E1b1b

Hi. I don't mind what other people say. I am just asking for myself, concerning this edit, you have stepped into an old discussion which has recently been awakened by User:SOPHIAN, after the original proposer of these words, User:Causteau recently back down due to his admission that it lacked reliable sourcing. I like to talk straight so please note that it appears that SOPHIAN has stepped into this as a meat puppet and out of ignorance and no other reason. Here is the new section on the talkpage about it. You might also want to look at SOPHIAN's talkpage. If you know anything about this subject post there, and otherwise I guess you are going to just look like another one of these Africa-obsessed China shop bulls.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope one has nothing to do with the other don't make it seem i have a horse in this race, i don't care about sophians record he has not done anything worse than wapondaponda has done as far as i can see ,though i must say that National Geographic Genographic project is a reliable source and wikipedia does make room for minority views under WP:NPOV unless they are considered fringe and i am not aware of nat geo engaging in fringe theories,if it's reliably sourced there is no real reason not to include it outside of pov, though if you see my revert of wapondaponda his reasoning for the revert was poor citeing that it's outdated is not sufficent and he is suspect because of his sock army and history of pov pushing.I will say this it seems like things have gone off the rails at that article and it seems neither wapondaponda or sophian is helping the issue along--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would be good examples of China shop bulls at this moment. I have no problem with minority views. But is there still one? National Geographic has lots of old material on its website. Try writing to them to ask where this one comes from. It has been there a long time. The text was put there before their sponsored project was under way so it comes from somewhere outside. This debate was going long before Wapondaponda and SOPHIAN appeared and goes back to a debate between me and Causteau, which Causteau has now given up on. I have explained many times: I remember almost 10 years ago when I first had my own DNA tested I got a message quite similar to the text now on their webpage. This came from the same testing lab who coordinates the Genographic testing. That lab has long since changed that text. (I come to this subject first as a genealogist and am constantly in contact with labs and people being tested.) The text is really something that comes from what used to be known about the ancient parent clade of E1b1b, before E1b1b was discovered. See Haplogroup E and Haplogroup DE. The minority debate switches to those pages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is up to you who is challengeing this website to get confirmation that the site is not up to snuff, not to try and fit your own b to z and say well we can't use it because i say its outdated, to me it would be logical to get that info from national genographic and than show that information and that will slience this whole snafu--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not up to Wikipedians to disprove that an internet website is reliable, it is the other way around. This is a clear and standard policy in Wikipedia.

WP:PROVEIT The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Internet websites can be reliable sources, but in this case the debate between Wikipedians concerning this information has been very specifically about whether this is up to date or obsolete. You have to address that or else I suggest backing off. As it happens this is a question which is very easy to check in this field, because there are so few articles over so few years, and it is easy to see how opinions have developed, including the opinion of Spencer Wells.

Frankly, I think neither of you (Wikiscribe nor SOPHIAN) have much knowledge about the field, and that if you did there would be no discussion. You are both defending an old edit of Causteau, which he no longer defends, which defends an old source associated with Spencer Wells, which he clearly no longer supports either.

By the way, please participate in the discussion being attempted on the article webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_%28Y-DNA%29#Genographic . As you will see, Wapondaponda has done his homework this time, and I think credit should be given where credit is due.

If neither of you can explain your against-consensus edits then I think the only approach open to you is to open a case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard . But frankly, what knowledge are you going to demonstrate there which you can not demonstrate in discussion so far?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so there is no misunderstanding, I really do not suggest asking for opinions on the RS Noticeboard. It is most likely you'll be told this is a content dispute that should be handled by editors who know most about these subjects, on the relevant talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you claim to have knowledge(though you stated you were some sort geneologist not a geneticist) of the subject does not mean you can engage in original reserch either, i am defending the right of a article to have a minority view (if it's applicable) ,not defending one view or another, i am begining to not like your tone andrew you seem to be lacking in the assume good faith area ,also remember wikipedia is not a scholarly venture it's a encylopedia and you might want to bone up on this one as well WP:NOTTRUTH--Wikiscribe (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my tone, but frankly this makes no sense at all, and if you have to explain things to someone who confidently and aggressively takes sides in a debate he has not looked at first it is hard to make comments NOT sound a little critical. You entered an argument more than a year old which is a "reliable sources" question pure and simple. That is why I posted above concerning reliable sources and basic policy. Sorry if it sounded patronizing, but that is the fact of the matter. What's more you took the side of the party ADDING text against a person who deleted it. He deleted on the correct basis that the internet webpage source is useless for this purpose. I defended the latter person concerning his deletion. How can I therefore be accused of original research in all of this? I might be guilty of all kinds of terrible edits, but original research is simply impossible in this particular set of circumstances. Please understand that the person who originally added this text who was the only one who had any claim to knowing what he was claiming, unlike SOPHIAN who is clueless on these subjects, was Causteau, who has advised everyone to give up on this particular bit of text because it's sourcing is not good enough. You are flogging a third hand dead horse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this haplogroup E1b1b have any impact on determining how much a person looks like one of the racial social-constructs or not. A certain debate here Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy may be greatly impacted by the POV assumption that inheritance of this haplotype may indicate whether one is part of the racial group black or the Caucasoid skeletal group. If an inheritance of this haplogroup has no bearing on this, I do not think relying on it as an indicator of one's race is valid. I'm sure in ancient times, in areas bordering on the concentrated inheritance boundary people on both sides of any exclusive grouping would have high preponderance of this haplogroup or the converse. Ancient Egyptians having this haplotype or not having it would still appear to be black. There is no doubt in my mind large groups of black Africans had this haplotype. And finally, stop trying to accuse me of sock puppetry. If I was a sock puppet, I would be far to sophisticated to time my edits in a way to be obvious. Furthermore, your accusation is more suspicious as you seem to accuse anyone who views the Egyptians of being black as socks. --Panehesy (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panehesy if you are going to take your vaulable time to comment here please make it new news not old news, yes i suspect among the banned editors that some of them are socks of each other, but if an admin can't see that than i am not going to waste my time worrying about that. You are now blocked for breaking your ban ,i suggest let the arb case take it's course, breaking your ban unilateraly does not help your case to get unbanned.But just by chance if you are talking about wapondaponda i am not accuseing him of sock puppetry at the AERC article it has been prven he made disruptive edits under a sock called dimitri "whatever" account and also he made disruptive edits under the sock called blue toothed kangaroo.--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am blocked for a false accucasion for edit warring I may need your help.

Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SOPHIAN&action=edit The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and wapondaponda have been edit warring, you should both be blocked as i see it you for whatever an admin see as fit and wapondaponda should have his right to edit revolked because he was only allowed to edit under a condiditon of a 1rr rule and the other being no socks but he has reverted you 4 times at that E1b1b article--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Your right but I know how people feel sorry for him so I most likely will be blocked and he won't if thats the case I may need your help. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well of course that report against you is very disingenous ,he has been doing the same thing,but you got to explain your stroy it's obivous he is reporting you in order to win an edit war,though i have let WMC know that he has been edit warring--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks A million :)The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your buddy is even fortunate, if you see on the Noticeboard, other administrators were even considering harsher sanctions. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wapondaponda i don't care what sophian has done he has done no worse than you also they were talking about a range block to stem the tide of your socks when you were making ridiculous lampoons of me with socks at the admin board. Ever peep out William M. Connolley block log[[1]] seems like he might have called people some names before no body is a saint here but like i said you should not be using socks to lampoon people either --Wikiscribe (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to continue editing at Ancient Egyptian race controversy...

... please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued. Thank you. Zara1709 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i guess this is a tad late in coming but i lost my internet connection for a long while sorry i could not get back to you--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in

You might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_African_genetic_contribution_to_the_population_of_the_European_continent

Your message

The fact that a discussion is taking place is good. However, removing content without consensus, after those changes have been called into question, is wrong and blatantly against editing guidelines. As for your assumptions, Bab-a-lot is not a friend, I am not increasing tensions nor did I intend to help any one person. I thank you kindly not to assume my position as my only goal is the constant improvement to this encyclopedia. It is not for example not to involve myself in the petty disputes of editors who disagree on the amount of pictures on any article. Nor is it my goal to argue with 2-3-4 or even 5 editors over the ancestry of people I have no interest in. My revert was simple, concise and explained in my edit summary. Changes should be made after the consensus is reached. Not before. If you do not want me involved then stop spamming up the articles history with petty reverts. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned an edit involving you in a complaint I just filed against User:Tarc

It's the first link in my complaint at WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents page. I said nothing negative (and implied nothing negative) about you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WLA

You know, I did want to improve some of those six refs. But I decided to get away from WP for a while. I'm trying to peel myself away again! I'm actually watching the Olympics right now (besides Wikipediaing) so it won't be until tomorrow that I'll start looking for references. SamEV (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. I used to think curling was a funny game, but I've come around, somewhat. SamEV (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WS, do me a favor, please: would you go to "my preferences" and enable your E-mail right now? If you do or not, let me know. SamEV (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Sorry for the delay. Check your Email. SamEV (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to post-disco, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The content removed was unsourced again note this WP:PROVEIT the onus is on you not on me and please do not refer to me as a vandal in edit summaries(as you know damn well i aint a vandal) because i think that counts as a personal attack being on wikipedia a persoanl attack has very broad meaning it seems, now unless you have something constructive to type dont type anything, okay mister or mrs lupus--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No if the 'citation needed' tag is used. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is needed tag is not a replacement for a source as i said before the policy is not ambiguous at all on this matter whether there is one of those tags or not,unsourced statements can be removed!Now i have been in contact with an ADMIN about this and starting from March 15thmyou got 4 more weeks to come up with a source for that statement if not it will be removed with no questions asked and if you restore it i can promise ytou an admin with block you from editing, not get lost from my Page and happy hunting for your source!--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not I already called one [Mod], so your tough guy arguments are completly irrelevant, I'm really sorry. Oh and I'm very sorry but I don't understand following words: "15thmyou", "ytou" - it isn't written in English; and please avoid WP:POV/WP:PA (your following point-of-view criticism), because these "arguments" are prohibited in Wikipedia, so you could be banned. Thank you for your understanding. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again i stand by my statement WP:PROVEIT>>>>>>>The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores statements.[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.[2--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]
You're not even arguing, you just playing with the words and I am sure this is an typical act of trolling and trolling is in Wikipedia prohibited (Jimbo Wales) with an indefinite ban. Have a nice day and enjoy your last days at the Wikipedia. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some times i wish people would worry more about improving Wikipedia in their own native language maybe their would not be so many POV pushers clogging up English language version--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos for White Latin Americans

Hello, I noticed your working on finding some women for the White Latin American page. We had Elena Poniatowska on the page for quite some time until we decided on having references for them all. But I found a reference for her [2], and a clearer photo [File:Elena Poniatowska.JPG]... or you could use the same one on her page. She has ties to France (mother) and is a princess of Polish blood also, a good candidate. Her mother's family was a "Porfirian" family exiled in Paris (where they had roots). Thanks for your hard work on this! C.Kent87 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mexican article help

I there i noticed you did a good job on the recent galleries on latin americans etc..good job which makes it neater by along way..also salma hayek has a better photo which is free to use on you hispanics gallery collage you made..if you want to change....ok..well basically im asking for your thoughts on the Spanish Mexican page..since there seems to be a dispute on what these ancestral articles means by a person ont he talk page....im trying convince them that someone born in mexico of spanish descent is still a distict ethnic group which needs an article like all the others like French Mexican.but they seem to confuse culture with ancestry which doesnt change no matter how long their ancestors have been in the country....still descended from immigrants....unless the name of the article can be mexicans of Spanish descent. It is the same case as the English-American, being the founding colonists of the country that confuses this person. do you agree with me?.. thankyou regards.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.54.141 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and i will see what i can do--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Furtado

Thanks for your thoughts on that article's talkpage. I had suggested in the past that this article be protected but it usually gets released. If you could help to protect it, I'd appreciate the help. --Morenooso (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Furtado: Time for the "ignore" part

The more we reply, the more we feed this thing. Let the IPs rant. If they spread it out, they'll get blocked for disruption. If they try to mod the article once the protection expires, they'll get blocked. There's really not anything productive we can do.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True ,i just let my emotions get the better of me--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What!? You're a reviewer!?

I thought I was special because I received that status, but now I see they give them out like candy! :-> SamEV (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Check your email. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo!

When you replaced Guevara with Jamil Mahuad (see here), did you find a source for Mahuad? Just asking, so I won't duplicate effort by looking for one. SamEV (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about Incivility by User:Srobak on the Phill Collins Talk Page i transferred here because he keeps removing my post from the Talk page,your incivility has caught my eye to :)

Has anyone noticed that the DOB is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.50.32 (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Only cause some jackbag just changed the dates a minute ago. I'll be fixing it in a moment. Warning issues to the anon IP. Srobak (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Please note WP:Civility, WP:PERSONAL attacks are not allowed please refrain from calling other editors "Jackbags" and WP:ASSUME good faith,Thanks--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

email replied to. EOM.

SamEV (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied back. SamEV (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Invasion 64-66, mid 1960's

I am requesting your participation in the British Invasion article Talk Page discussion of this topic for the purpose of resolving an edit war occurring between yourself and another editor Edkollin (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language section of Trinidad and Tobago article

I can see why you simplified this section, but I am curious why citations are needed for pretty obvious language-related items... They seem pretty obvious to me! E.g. why do we need a citation to know that Les Coteaux is French, or Auchenskeoch Scottish? In the case of Creole, just look at Trinidadian_Creole_English... Just curious... Jpaulm (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I was trying to assume good faith as to why you needlessly modified a picture on White Americans and then I saw the notes in this edit. I am not a "Marlyn Monroe obsessed fellow" as you put it, but rather there are 10 (yes, count them 10) dark-haired women in the picture and one blonde in her 60s. To insinuate that my modification of your picture was anything less than an attempt to improve the artcile is both insulting and juvenile. In addition, the picture you included of Megan Fox is copyrighted; the picture of Marilyn Monore is public domain. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time little stunt you pulled with adding Ms Monroe got the darn thing deleted(you know the collage i took the time out to make)... not really Megan Fox was in that from jump street i never added her but when i made the thing i tried to keep as many people who were there before hand....Actually when somebody seems fixated on something it is okay to let it be known...i did not say anybody had "bad" intentions or Malice in there heart ....Actually worrying about how many hair color types are in the thing seems a bit juvenile or being a bit anal retentive...Don't you think?Especially with the long tradition of dyeing ones hair ...like MS. Monroe who is not a natural blonde by the way[[3]] that picture if free use also..Good Day Sir.--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way -- the collage was deleted because you included AnoushehAnsari.jpg as a source, not because of anything other than that. It's since been modified again, so please don't go thinking I'm obsessed with Charles Lindbergh now. Thanks.Erikeltic (Talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you were wrong with Megan Fox picture being the reason....--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go look at the delete tag that was on it. You're mistaken. Either way, it doesn't matter now. The new one looks fine to me. nice job. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:European American

This may be of interest to you on Talk:European American#Proposal to remove infobox images for this page. I agree with your edit to restore the montage. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please come to the talk page. Your complaint about me only targeting White articles is untrue, as you can see on the talk page of Multiracial Americans. Bulldog123 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So… to drive home the point about how he shouldn’t complain about your conduct, you slap an IDON’TLIKEIT tag under the picture you deleted? After your arguments were getting no traction with the others and basis for your position were proven false? Please desist. I caution you, Bulldog, editwarring against consensus via *creative* means is still editwarring. You’d be wise to not do that again. Greg L (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Rhythm Romance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gina Lynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kimbo Slice, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bahamian and American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Captain of Her Heart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wikiscribe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wikiscribe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]