User talk:Zoeydahling

Zoeydahling, is it really you? Any word on those images? Can we use 'em? --JayHenry 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's not that surprising that I have lonelygirl15 on my watchlist? I saw your edit to the article and came to say hello! --JayHenry 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Jessica Lee Rose back to C class, full explanation has been provided.--Otterathome (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography Peer Review is almost dead. The GA page meant WP:PR. Hekerui (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can list it in PR, the Wikiproject is likely of little/no help, you can't list an article for both PR and GA at the same time though. Perhaps you should work on the article some more before listing it on PR, that's for more developed work (I just say that without having read the article in detail, so no offense). Simply use an existing GA/FA article as a blueprint. You can also check WP:BETTER. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to. Besides, the PR is already there. Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the details how this works look at what is written on Wikipedia:Peer review, it's pretty detailed, or ask an administrator - they will gladly help you out with such procedural questions. Hekerui (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The stale tag is to note that there have been no additional comments for a couple of or few days - this covers a broad number of possibilities (eg; nothing else can be done at this time, nobody is willing to deal with the issues raised at this time, everyone has moved past the issue for now, etc. etc. etc.) It is pretty difficult to demonstrate that an editor is engaging in complex conduct issues (like tendentious editing or gaming the system) at a venue like WQA. The best way to highlight problems of that nature (if they exist) is through RfC - article RfC to demonstrate how conduct is interfering with content issues, or WP:RfC/U which focusses on editor conduct and may be a useful avenue for you to try. If those steps also fail, or the conduct is becoming a serious problem, then the only alternative left is to request administrator intervention (ANI), or sometimes you may need to go further than that and request intervention from ArbCom in order to resolve the dispute - see also the later steps in dispute resolution. Does that help you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised above to file at RFC/U. You then unwisely unarchived something at ANI. It has been removed. Please take the issue to RFC/U as explained above and in ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that one coming.</sarcasm>--Otterathome (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this up and I'll just create a separate account to tag articles.--Otterathome (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this yet another accusation of wikistalking for a user? After the ANI proved that User:Mathieas wasn't one, you really think it's a good idea to accuse another user of being one? Once again, I am obviously interested in web series, it is therefore not surprising that I would have related articles on my Watchlist. Please WP:AGF. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited an article you've never edited before straight after I did, that's stalking. The fact you had to revert yourself just enforces the fact.--Otterathome (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, not really. From WP:HOUND:

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

If someone is concerned that you're disrupting the encyclopedia, keeping an eye on your contributions is entirely accepted. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because we need more users watching my edits after posts on WP:WQA and WP:ANI on my edits have been there for weeks.--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please move your comment to the section above? Only uninvolved editors should be discussing this. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:LG15:_The_Resistance, its back. --Milowent (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in contact with Marnette Patterson and she has told me that she, along with her staff will control the page, that means thats an authorized page. You can now add the link to the page Marnette Patterson. We will try to upload a video as soon as possible to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHalliwell (talk • contribs)

Ok, i will tell Marne to make the video, and as soon as possible i will let you know, and you will put the links and protect the page from vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHalliwell (talk • contribs)

There were lot of MySpace's pages on Marne's Wikipedia, claiming to be official, she doesnt not have an official MySpace page.MHalliwell (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop removing maintenance tags on articles without even attempting address the reason why they were placed. And not mentioning it in the edit summary makes it look like you are being deceptive.--Otterathome (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're going to have to be more specific because I have no idea what you are talking about. But as far as edit summaries are concerned, Help:Edit summary says that it is "good practice" to add edit summaries, but it is not required so saying that I am being "deceptive" by not adding one is pretty absurd. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Melanie Merkosky and multiple times on Tubefilter.--Otterathome (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merkosky was a nine-day-old edit when you posted above, and she did mention it in the edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What tags did I remove on either of those articles without discussing it either on the edit summary or the talk page? If you're going to accuse me of something, I'd appreciate if you would WP:PROVEIT. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otter, might help if she had actually removed the tag you're accusing her of removing. Take another look at the history, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey everyone, is this where the party is today? Its Otter's turn to buy a round. --Milowent (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What page is being referenced? Billbowery (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, that information still hasn't been provided. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I can tell, this is the diff he's complaining about.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that diff makes me look very guilty, doesn't it? --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, seems like the truth is really being stretched (i.e. totally misrepresented) here! Billbowery (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any interest in helping to create an essay on "Masking the existence of notability"? Would be a good alternate view to Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability A huge discussion going on in ANI today (search for "miami" and you'll find it there) made me think about this--Milowent (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billbowery Billbowery (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just made some notes and responded to you on my talk page :) Billbowery (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second warning for removing maintenance tags without an explanation or attempting to address the problem on Tubefilter, please stop, it is disruptive. If you are unsure what the maintenance tags mean, be sure to read the talk page where you can ask for further help.--Otterathome (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are not an admin, you do not get to give me "warnings".

Second of all, you might have noticed the above section where you accused me of such where you still have been unable to provide diffs to back up your claim.

Third of all, the changes were dicussed on the talk page so you have no business reverting them until you can prove they belong to the satisfaction of a consensus of editors.

So cut it out. Please :) --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need any special status to give warnings, I haven't replied above as it appears you've gotten in to a discussion about it with other users. I didn't revert all changes. If you provide an explanation on the talk page, it is important to mention that in the edit summary instead of trying to squash reasons in to the edit summary box. I look forward to discussions with you on the talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the other editors have said is that no one can find any instances of the thing you are accusing me of, so if you have proof of such, by all means, please provide it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, [1][2]. Anything else?--Otterathome (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what you're accusing me of is removing templates without discussing it in the edit summary. What you just linked to were two diffs where I removed templates and discussed it in the edit summary. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "a simple google news search will show that she is notable. this article is just a stub, which means it needs expanding. that's all."
2. "i disagree, i think the "synthesis" here is totally within reasonable bounds (its not saying source X says this about source Z). if you want to get a third-party editor involved to voice her opinion though, i'm open to it."

I don't see any mention of the removal of any templates in those edit summaries. Just want to make this clear, more appropriate edit summaries would be:

1. "a simple google news search will show that she is notable. this article is just a stub, which means it needs expanding. that's all. so removed notability template"
2. "i disagree, i think the "synthesis" here is totally within reasonable bounds (its not saying source X says this about source Z). if you want to get a third-party editor involved to voice her opinion though, i'm open to it. so removed SYN tag"

Hope that is clear enough for you and we have an understanding.--Otterathome (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the templates and explained why I did so thing in the edit summary. That's hardly being "deceptive" or "removing maintenance tags without an explanation." I gave an explanation. I was upfront with my reasons and I see no reason to change how I go about doing this for two reasons: One, edit summaries are optional, you do not have to include them, so I am already ahead of the game by doing so and Two, I did explain exactly why I was removing the tags. There is nothing "disruptive" about going about removing the tags in the manner I did. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tubefilter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood 3RR. I thought it was about removing the same exact content over and over, not just reverting any content in general. And honestly, my edits were all along the lines of "this is still being discussed on the talk page, please do not keep adding it until consensus has been reached," so I was trying to use the talk page as suggested. Anyway, sorry if I violated the rule and I'll try to be more careful about it in the future. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, replied to this here, as I'm not sure how this edit comes anywhere close to vandalism. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out why on Earth I would have identified the edit in question as vandalism, and I offer my sincere apologies for my error. The warning message has been removed and I hope that you accept my regrets for my error. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to continue with the authors of the sources discussion? I was still waiting for you to tell me what's in the eventbright source which isn't on the main website to suggest TF staff didn't write any of it.--Otterathome (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Talk:Tubefilter. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources are substantial coverage?--Otterathome (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with Vincent Caso.--Otterathome (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could go through and point out each one to you, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. Consensus about the quality of the sources has already been reached, and the community determined that the sources met WP:N well enough to merit inclusion on this wiki, so a notability template should not be added to the page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template isn't about the quality of the sources, but whether they cover the subject in a trivial manner or not so that it meets WP:N. But if this has been shown in previous discussions, do copy and paste it here.--Otterathome (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community decided that the sources meet WP:N well enough for inclusion (which, among other things, means they determined the sources were not just trivial), otherwise, any one of the discussions you opened would have been closed as delete. I am not going to copy 3 AfDs, a merge discussion and a DRV here, you can look them up yourself (the links can be found at Talk:LG15: The Last and Talk:Vincent Caso). --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template shows it doesn't meet WP:N because all the sources are trivial, why you can't just refer to past discussions and tell me which source(s) are not trivial is very strange.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked you to the past discussions, feel free to read them. If you noticed, the conclusion was that the articles should be kept, which means they meet WP:N well enough to merit inclusion on the wiki, so whether you personally, or I personally think that the sources are trivial or non trivial is completely irrelevant. A consensus has been reached that indicates the sources meet WP:N well enough to merit inclusion. It's time to WP:LETITGO. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said exact same thing at Talk:Tubefilter#Notability_maintenance_tags. AFD is to find out if an article should be deleted, not if it meets certain guidelines (though that is a part of it). An article being kept at AFD and meeting guidelines are two different things.--Otterathome (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely was. And you'll notice that the 3rd opinion agreed with me. If an article did not meet any of the notability guidelines for this wiki, the article would have been deleted. Since it was kept, it meets the notability guidelines. You should note that WP:N explicitly states that an article does not have to meet every guideline it could qualify for, just one well enough for inclusion. Since the AfD determined that the article should be kept (and in the case of LG15: The Last, 2 AfDs, a merge discussion and a DrV), the community has decided (per WP:CONSENSUS) that it meets the notability guidelines well enough for inclusion, so no notability tag is necessary. Consensus > your personal opinion. If you are having trouble understanding that idea, feel free to ask for help at the appropriate venues. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third opinion said it should be discussed at a deletion discussion, not that it passed any guideline. Why you think consensus to keep an article is the same as consensus that it passes guidelines is unknown. AFD = articles for deletion, not DAMGX - does article meet guideline x. Your 'oh it was decided before so I don't have to explain it again or even quote anything' stance seems to be a Argumentum ad populum argument. Or in other words, "I won't discuss the issue with you because other users disagreed with you".--Otterathome (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me try this a different way. In your opinion, what does it mean if an article is kept at an AfD? And please do not just say that the community decided it should be kept, please explain, in general terms (as in, not for one specific article, but for all articles in general), what an article being kept on this wiki means regarding the article itself. And as an aside, I am not saying I won't discuss the issue with you because other users disagreed with you, I'm saying you need to look at the consensus of previous discussions for WP:CONSENSUS and not expect every individual user to engage one on one with you about why you disagree with consensus. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:AFD. Reverting edits which you have no intention of discussing is disruptive, so either show why it meets the guidelines or stop reverting.--Otterathome (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the 15th time you have to explain something, it gets kind of old, Otter.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I asked for your opinion on what a policy means, and instead of explaining, you just linked directly to the policy? Who's the one who's not discussing here? --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where on WP:AFD does it say it is a place to reach a consensus whether it meets a certain guideline?--Otterathome (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what I asked you? Why can't you answer a simple question? You might want to read the characteristics of tendentious editors, which states "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors." --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be removing the two sources which we have no conclusive answer to who the author(s) are, so we cannot be determine if they are reliable or not. See WP:RS.--Otterathome (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start working on your unblock rationale, then, because that's disruptive and WP:POINTy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoeydahling, I reverted your edit to remove the "failed verify" tag on Abacus. I suspect that the editor who put that in may be confused between historical etymology and modern Hebrew useage but I don't know enough about the subject to confidently revert it. In any case, it is not verified by the source, so either the tag should stay or it should be rolled back to the original text. SpinningSpark 11:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the issue the difference between the letters b and v? In Hebrew, the two are actually represented by the same character (see Bet (letter)), so I'd assume that either translation is correct, but if it's an issue, it can probably safely be changed back. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's it exactly. If it doesn't make any difference, why did the editor change it in the first instance? Hebrew phonology#Regional and historical variation backs up my theory that this edit is mistakenly applying modern practice to historical etymology but I really have no expertise here. My whole objection amounts to that it not agreeing with the source. SpinningSpark 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no harm in reverting it back to the original version to match the source, so I'll go ahead and do that and leave a note on the talk page to that effect. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

believe it or not, I think Yousef tweeted to confirm the alternate last name.--Milowent (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link? --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zoeydahling! I asked Marne who did the photo, but they said it is a promotional shot, just to share who is she and everything, you know, how can i put that on the image? --MHalliwell (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are all posted on her official site: www.marnepatterson.com/promo.html MHalliwell (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you de-prodded this, Zoey, you should have been notified that its now been nominated for deletion. Also, do you have a source for the "Copy, Credit, Meals Provided" film? cheers.--Milowent (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Alexandra Dreyfus, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Dreyfus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kate Harper and Nancy McNally.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your expansion - please be aware that tabloid newspapers are not reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information I added under "Public Image" seems to be contested on the talk page, but regardless, the early life info holds. It comes from Pippa and Kate's pages and I see no reason why it should not be included on James'. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because the mail, express and star are not reliable sources. If you wish to consider including information from reliable sources, do so, but adding unreliable information to a BLP is something that ends badly. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is your argument that the Early Life information should also be deleted from Kate and Pippa's pages as well, then? --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's from such unreliable sources, most certainly. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please mind directing me to a page that shows consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source? I have seen it contested on various talk pages and I would like to know if that is something consensus has been reached over or is simply a matter of personal opinion? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See this discussion, which marks it as "meh, *sometimes acceptable*" and the notes here about the need for high-quality sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the part with the google info had other sources backing it up other than those you expressed issue with. In addition there is plenty more recent coverage re the drag and nudity. above the people suggest mail and other sources to back it up which is easily doable here Nirame (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide other sources and remove the mail references. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says no where the mail ones should be removed when other sources confirm the info is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry? Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the link you provided, it does not claim that The Daily Mail is never a reliable source, just that it is sometimes not a reliable source. Furthermore, the consensus seems to be that the Daily Mail can be used when other sources back up the claims. The "Early Life" section as I had written it was backed up by sources such as: wargs.com, The Telegraph, Hello!, News of the World, the Party Pieces Website, & The Scotsman. Therefore I am having trouble with your claim that the entire section needs to be reverted because of the use of a few Daily Mail links, especially in light of the link you yourself provided regarding the Daily Mail as a RS. Therefore, I think that that section can reasonably be restored to the way I posted since it lines up with your information regarding the Daily Mail.

Furthermore, the section about "James Middleton gay" being a popular Google search was not sourced at all by the Daily Mail and therefore I don't understand your claims that it should be deleted. The cross-dressing information appears to be mainly sourced by the Daily Mail, but corroborated by ctv.ca and seems to be available in other sources. Until those other sources are added, we may be justified in removing the cross-dressing section, but it seems to me that the rest of the article as I had written it holds up. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well said. sadly the article is now locked for 3 days and just happened to be locked 1 min after the contested info was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - Content from the Daily Mail as with similar papers requires looking at in the light of day - it is basically a WP:RS but saying that - much of what it writes is not the type of titillating commentary that you would like to find in any decent life story. - oops, don't mind me I thought this was the article talkpage, excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then how is what was written in the Early Life section "titillating commentary"? It was simply fact-based information, verified by other sources (as mentioned above) regarding his early life. I don't see how anything in there, as I had typed it, really fell into BLP-violation territory, and thus am having difficulty understanding why the page was locked in protection of that information. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look at the content that whole public image stuff is very titillating and tabloid and likely interesting on twitter but doesn't rise to encyclopedic style biographical detail. I think this would better be happening on the article talkpage.. but its locked for some time so we can work this out. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Public Image" section can be contested, but I believe the "Early Life" information holds. I copied this convo over to Talk:James William Middleton so it gets a wider pool of editors looking at it; hopefully that will be helpful. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the G12 you added to Kuniaki Kobayashi. If you look at the bottom of http://kuniaki-kobayashi.co.tv/ you'll see "* Source : Wikipedia.org" --SPhilbrickT 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. The article didn't quite read like a normal article (which just probably means that whomever wrote it was not familiar with the "typical" way of writing), but it struck me as a bit odd so I went Googling. I failed to notice that Source notice at the bottom, so thanks for letting me know. --Zoeydahling (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bruno Gianelli.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I went ahead and added the image to List of characters in The West Wing, the article from which Bruno Gianelli (the original article with the image) was merged to. Therefore I have removed the speedy deletion template. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining! :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Oliver Babish.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bruno Gianelli.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mallory OBrien.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Helen Santos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Joey Lucas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Louise Thornton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Joey Lucas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Elizabeth Bartlet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Zoeydahling. Just so you get the record straight, I was not the one to add the full name of William. I looked at the video just following the full title, and it had an expert on British protocol on the show, who clearly said her full title included Princess William and nothing more. It was User 68.33.102.251, who last month probably surfaced as User 68.58.63.22, who keeps insisting on adding the full name (including middle names). My last edit summary was a nod to the fact that said user added a reference stating as much (the full name), and I could not really argue with that reference. You still left it in the article -- What's in a title?. Why did you pull the middle names and not the reference backing that up? I am puzzled.

At least you should have done the obvious, to read the reference that says "Kate's full title is: Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus." and then refute the validity of that reference. To just say a person is wrong, when they have tried to add a reliable source, is unWikipedian in behavior. You need to explain your actions here. The Talk Page has no consensus on the matter, so that is no place to look for answers, I am afraid. --Skol fir (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I took a closer look at the reference in question, and there is no doubt in my mind that this reference carries no weight at all. It is entirely created by a bevy of editors with nicknames only, and no references are provided as sources. I have thus removed the offending reference and your edit stands as is. See my explanation here: Princess William [Arthur Philip Louis]?. --Skol fir (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like you've come to the same conclusion I have in the past. I actually didn't notice that reference had been added when I reverted the page, but I've reverted the addition of that link in the past, for the same reasons you did! I've said this before, but I have no problems whatsoever with us adding William's middle names, just as soon as we can find a reliable source to back it up. That's the most important thing for a WP:BLP after all. Glad we're on the same page now :) --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad that this issue is resolved, from both our points of view. We will just have to wait and see if that is also the opinion of certain Americans who pretend to know more about royalty than we do! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zoeydahling, I would like to thank you for your contributions to a Grey's Anatomy-related article. Since it appears you are interested in this topic, I would like to personally invite you to join WikiProject Grey's Anatomy! This project consists of a group of users, collaborating to make articles related to Grey's Anatomy better. Our primary goal is to get as many articles as we can promoted to good and featured statuses, by developing, and reverting vandalism to them. We would be extraordinarily pleased if you decided to join our WikiProject, and help make a difference. If you are interested, all you have to do is add this code: [[Category:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy participants]], to your user page, and you are officially a member. If you are having trouble joining, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Again, thank you for your help, and I hope to see you as a member of the project soon! Sofffie7 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer, you can add on your user page this userbox {{User WP Grey's}} instead as it includes the above wikicode. --Sofffie7 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes --Frze > talk 08:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog status (Purge)

Category	Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting	Not done
Pages with missing references list	Done
Pages with broken reference names	Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".

Best wishes --Frze > talk 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Percy Fitzwallace.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Will Bailey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 05:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Amy Gardner.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 14:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abbey Bartlet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Russell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ellie Bartlet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Deborah Fiderer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Ritchie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zoey Bartlet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ormond 💬 07:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Matt Santos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sam Seaborn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Arnold Vinick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]