Stolengood

Welcome!

Hello, Stolengood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! billinghurst (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Stolengood. You have new messages at Markyc1's talk page.
Message added 12:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

I'm including you in this talkback as you were one of the main editors in the revert war, and in hope that we can sort this situation out without a block. RandomTime 12:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought that would help, but it seems it hasn't. I've added a more stern warning, but I'm not sure if that will help. I hope Markyc1 can see reason, but I have a feeling this may require administrator assistance RandomTime 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's all right with me; I've done my explaining. Thank you for mediating in this disagreement. Stolengood (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Heath Ledger has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

His name was Robertson, not Robinson. His later projects are credited to Robertson, not Robinson. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The later projects gain primacy? I didn't know that... Stolengood (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think either the earlier or later ones have primacy. His name was Robertson but he was sometimes credited as Robinson. You turned it around. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A lot of the linked pages credited him as Robinson, which is what I went with. Stolengood (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Atlantis, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films, you may be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't blank anything; I'm just partially reorganizing the page. Stolengood (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.  – Tommy [message] 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

All right. Stolengood (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Unless there is a reliable source stating that The End of Time incorporated parts of the Final Game an encyclopedia can't make that statement. Indeed you can't even compare the similarities without a source, to do so would be synthesis. Thank you. Maccy69 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:NickAdams Killers.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 Dude2 (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Christopher Marlowe. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Tim PF (talk)

Please also note that literary works, such as epic poems, go in italics (per WP:MOSITALICS). Tim PF (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have noticed you've added that Graham's original 2010 episode slot was replaced by "Amy's Choice", but the source you site does not say that it was replaced by "Amy's Choice", only that he originally planned to write for the 2010 series. Therefore, I have removed this info as it would be original research. I apologize that my edit summary for "Amy's Choice" was not complete, as I hit the enter key bu accident. Regards, Glimmer721 ^talk 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed you've added the months when each production block in Doctor Who's fifth series was filmed; do you know what source you got the info from? I would like to keep the info in the article, but I need a source for it. Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 00:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's a site featuring filming locations, as well as when they filmed in them; here's a link: [[1]] Stolengood (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Some of your uploads have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing....William 02:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Sorry about that; there's just not much information on the man's life. If you want, I can heavily revise the text; if you don't, you can remove whatever offends. Again, sorry... Stolengood (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh... thank you! Thought it was more appropriate, being another flashback, and all; thanks. :-) Stolengood (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Battle Hymn of the Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Kimball (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) 19:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Brown's Body, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Kimball (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) 11:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor Who (series 7), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Power of Three (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) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't edit war ([2], [3]) with another editor over the contents of his userpage. If Phil doesn't want to keep his statement posted on his userpage, it is not within your remit to force him to do so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very well. I won't edit his page again. My apologies. Stolengood (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to thank you for the kind words in your edit summary. I do think it's best that I keep a more discretely silent userpage, largely because I've moved my discussion of these topics off-wiki and to my own blog, and I don't want there to be any accusations that I'm canvassing or anything. So thanks for leaving the page be, but thanks also for your support. It does mean a lot. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Hope this whole situation resolves itself satisfactorily, but thank you for taking a stand. :-) Stolengood (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	It isn't often you'll find a stranger to defend your edits from an (unusually aggressive) editor, let alone one who thanks you for making the effort anyway. TinyTedDanson (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Awww, thanks so much. You had a really pragmatic edit of the article; as much as I wanted to have it be longer, for the sake of the wiki your version was best. It really should've stayed up. Thank you. :-) Stolengood (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Antoninus Pius page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am currently attempting to get Greed (film) promoted to FA status and thought that you may be interested in it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would be, yes. I'd like to add some more things, if that's all right with you; just a few more pictures (one of Gibson Gowland from Blind Husbands, and one of Frank Norris himself), and... well, let me have another look at the article. :-) Stolengood (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I found my scan and have uploaded it here. I'd love to have it included in the Dream a Little Dream of Me page, but I can't figure out how to keep it from getting deleted. Proscriptus (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there; I undid your edit to Template:Nerva–Antonine family tree, but I wanted to explain why so you'll understand this isn't a hostile gesture or anything. Roman praenomina have conventional abbreviations that are not always the same as the first letter; Gaius is abbreviated as "C.", Caeso as "K.", Gnaeus as "Cn.", etc. This is particularly salient with Tiberius: "T." means "Titus", while "Ti." (or sometimes "Tib.") means "Tiberius". Although this is a Latin convention, it's also followed in English works on ancient Romans. The article praenomen has many juicy details on the subject if you're interested. All the best, Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your recent help at WP:Selected anniversaries. I undid your edit on January 14 because of two reasons. Firstly, Tito was previously ineligible, but was improved upon and I like to give preference to articles that were recently improved as a sort of reward/thank you to the editors that cleaned it up, and I didn't use that article last year. Because it's the 40th anniversary of Lesley Whittle, that meant Bodyline had to be the one moved out in order to maintain chronological diversity. Secondly, you deleted Queen Maud Land and MiG-17, while putting Margrethe back into the Ineligible section. —howcheng {chat} 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I just liked the whole Bodyline segment; thought it was noteworthy. Stolengood (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Putting Wilson Bentley back in makes too many U.S items listed. As much as possible, you need to maintain diversity in chronology, geographic location, and topic. With U.S. topics being represented by the 200th and 150th anniversary items, Bentley had to make way. Sorry. —howcheng {chat} 09:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I figured the anniversary aspect would be the most pertinent factor. Stolengood (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's understandable. However IMHO 130 isn't one of the "significant" anniversaries. For events 100 years or older, I usually go with multiples of 25. Less than 100 years old I do multiples of 10 and 25. But in the absence of any other reason, a multiple of 10 will usually get an article put in. When you've been doing this as long as I have (I started maintaining these pages on a daily basis in November 2010), you get a feel of what sort of combinations elicit complaints on Talk:Main Page. Not that I'm claiming ownership of the process, mind you. Please by all means keep doing what you're doing. After all, if I get hit by a bus one day, someone's going to have to step in. If I overrule you on something, it's not out of spite or anything. :) —howcheng {chat} 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Understood. :-) I am a bit mystified at what exactly in the "Doctors' plot" portion is biased, unless it didn't stress the falseness of the accusations enough. Stolengood (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! You mentioned in your last edit to Template:Nerva–Antonine family tree that P. Acilius Attianus "DID practically adopt Hadrian with Plotina". Adoption was a big deal in the Roman world: you didn't just take somebody in, they became absolutely legally your child, they took your name, they joined your tribe and social order, they forfeited their old place in the line of inheritance, etc. After Trajan's (alleged) deathbed adoption of Hadrian, the latter became Imp. Caesar Divi Traiani filius Traianus Hadrianus Augustus (‘Emperor Caesar, son of the divine Trajan, Trajan Hadrian Augustus’): the names Acilius and Attianus appear nowhere in his titulature, and Hadrian didn't openly acknowledge Attianus as a parent. So we can't say that Attianus adopted Hadrian, at least not in any sense the Romans would accept as such... Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to move this discussion over to Template talk:Nerva–Antonine family tree. I'll be grateful to hear your input there. Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe should have just taken the hint.

• WP:FILMPLOT your addition bloats the plot unnecesssarily.
• It mentions a car model - Trivia
• It mentions the necklace - Trivia
• It's unencyclopedic writing
• The development quote at the time referred to the films as Fast 6 and Fast 7 so you're making the information incorrect
• The link to ACL injury explains it in full, it doesn't need abbreviating, it isn't used again
• Unnecessary inappropriate change of "requiring" to "forcing", they weren't "Forced" to do anything. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

ACL reads a lot better than the whole medical term. The necklace is needed for the "message" the villain is sending to make sense. The car model was meant to bring to the reader's attention that, yes, this is the same one from Tokyo Drift -- the car model was mentioned in the plot summary for Tokyo Drift, so I put it into this one to help specify without having to bring in who the hell else was in the race. I take back the development bit; I apologize for that bit, and you were right to correct me on that. But they were "forced" into shooting around Paul Walker due to him being taken out of action. I do wish you had messaged me after your first or second revert, at least -- and that you hadn't been so brusque about it. There was no need for that. Stolengood (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I can see that you've made similar edits on the Furious 7, and I've partially reverted some of them because the idea was to keep the plot from being too excessively detailed and mentioning unnecessary details which deviate from the actual plot. Also, I've mentioned several times not to change Frank Petty to "Mr Nobody", as it is not the character's real name, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped making that particular edit. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough I was maybe too blase in my reverts. The 700 word limit policy regarding film plots is because without it, it is easy to create a novel like retelling of a film, so we tell a broad overview instead. There is already a link to Tokyo Drift in the part about Han, so we don't need to further explain it, just that he was in a car, it crashed, he died. In the plot we already state that Deckard calls Dominic so we don't need the "Dominic Toretto" part of the quote, etc, etc. I've trimmed the plot down a lot anyway as it seems to have creeped up the word limit over the past few months, I moved the Fast 7 link to where you had it as reviewing it, it made more sense, and I re-used "forcing". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for the rudeness of my tone. Hope we can get past that. Also, 4TheWynne, he is not credited as "Frank Petty"; Kurt Russell's official credit is as "Mr. Nobody". The name "Frank Petty" is mentioned nowhere in the film; as such, it is nonsensical to include it in the synopsis when said character is consistently (and officially) referred to by another name. I'm going to revert that change for those reasons; please do not revert it. Thank YOU. Stolengood (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you chose to put all that stuff back in when I compromised and kept some of your stuff, but here is a breakdown of why I've reverted some of your changes:

• You start calling Dominic "Dom" without ever introducing that as a nickname.
• "for a full pardon, allowing them to return home to the United States." -> A pardon for what? restored amnesty, it's how it is referred to in the film
• "create a deadly device," deadly how? It disables power, it is not, by its nature lethal and you removed the explanation of what it does.
• "with FBI help", why are the entire FBI helping them?
• " highway military convoy carrying a computer chip to complete the device.", what device? Are we talking about the deadly device or another device?
• "Letty chooses to remain with Dominic." that she 'chooses' to remain is important.
• "Shaw and his crew are captured, but reveal Mia, kidnapped by Shaw." What?
• You put the necklace back in, ignoring what I said about it.
• You put the "dominic torretto" part back into the final quote, ignoring what I said about it.

Honestly, most of your changes seem intended to get the word count down just enough to put that bloated epilogue back in again, and it's fairly obvious. It's double the length of the existing thing and adds nothing not essential. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for some of those edits; however, I was trying to get the word count down. The necklace does turn out to be important, though, which is why I put it back in. However, I'll fix the nickname thing. I'm not going to revert anything; I'm just going to tinker with it until I've got the plot consise and clear. Sorry about the overall effect, though. Stolengood (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Did you add an edit-warring report and then delete it with no edit summary? That is likely to draw suspicion. In the future, use an edit summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought better of the report. Sorry about that. Stolengood (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Furious 7. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

...did you even read what you reverted closely? THERE IS NO SPACESHIP IN THE MOVIE. I was trying to fix the page; you obviously saw fit to wreck the plot section again. Now I'm going to have to go in there and fiddle with the damn thing all over again. Stolengood (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The recent sources that I added in my last edit prove that Kurt Russell is credited as Frank Petty. These weren't the only sources that I found, either. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads-up so that you don't wake up and see it thinking that I've gone and done this behind your back. But you have to be able to collaborate with other editors. I've now added sources on my behalf, but still kept the nickname that you are so adamant on using. I also restored the plot that I had worded previously, not because it's part of my "insane agenda", but because it is of better quality in terms of readability and accuracy than what was on the page at the time. I'm not "wrecking", "breaking" or "messing with" the plot section by doing this. If you're not willing to compromise, and are just going to blindly revert without any proper reasoning other than saying that it's "nonsense", then I'm going to ask you again – stop this pointless feud that you've started, and move on. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

In one of the sources that I found, it said that Kurt Russell had also signed onto The Expendables 3, but later pulled out to focus on Furious 7. Because the information was set in August 2013, when Russell had not yet been released from the film, it is relevant. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you put it in the main pre-production section, not the cast list (and under Ronda Rousey, not Kurt Russell, which, why?). There was no conflict for Russell, as opposed to the one Rousey had to navigate to accommodate doing Furious 7; in fact, Russell later stated in an interview he was never going to do The Expendables, if I recall correctly -- I'll have to dig that one up. But, regardless, when Kurt Russell was shooting 7, there was no conflict for him -- whereas Rousey and Dwayne Johnson had to specifically avoid conflicts with their respective projects. If you're going to keep it, I only suggest you move your bit of info to the pre-production section involving the casting and clarify it a bit more. That's all. Stolengood (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm quite happy for you to do that if you want. If you end up digging that source up, it'd be better to add that, too. I'd just like the whole issue that I arose last night to be put to rest, that's all. I believe the plot and the rest of the cast section should be left as it is now. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was going to focus on the production stuff, anyway; I've got a ridiculous amount of tabs open right now from trying to properly source everything. :-P Oy. Forgive me if I've been crabby with you; I was just trying to thread the needle with that whole "Mr. Nobody" business. I figured, he's credited as that -- as surprised as I was to see that in the theatre, though, it is official -- so why mess around with it? :-) Stolengood (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because, as I've tried to stress before, there's a difference between a character's proper name and its nickname. I believe it's just common sense, really. You might see the name "Mr Nobody" in the theatre but, let's face it, you also see "Hobbs" and "Letty" in there as well. But I'm glad that you and I are able to agree on something. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I'd feel more comfortable with it if they refer to him by that name, "Frank Petty", in the next movie. As of now, even with it being used elsewhere, you'll forgive me if I'm still reticent to use so prominently in the Wikipedia article a name no one will yet associate that character with, whereas everyone who's seen the movie knows Kurt Russell is "Mr. Nobody". It's just going to confuse them, I worry... :-S Stolengood (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Would you please share your source information for making James Smithson's birthdate June 5, 1765? Thank you. 2604:2000:F1E5:3A00:E9A7:BFF9:C9B9:1DF5 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello I am re-instating this question and changing the edit back. What is the proof you have for this birthdate June 5? If it is the Ewing biography footnote, that gives no such proof. Please do not revert the change unless you can add a footnote showing where you got June 5, 1765 from. Thank you.

It is in the Ewing biography; I have to find the exact page. In the meantime, please reinstate the change. Thank you. Stolengood (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am the author of that book and I spent six years in the archives in multiple countries and did not find a birthdate for Smithson. I assure you, it is not in the Ewing biography! 184.75.9.2 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

...damn. I'm sorry; I think I was misremembering. :-( My apologies. Stolengood (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I work in the Smithsonian Institution Archives and added a website source for the circa birthdate. Wondering if you could help us edit all of the foreign Wikipedia pages. The mistaken date seems to have traveled there. --Digitaleffie (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I get it — you don't like Bob Kane. But you can't make partisan, highly contentious edits that contradict the established historical record, which gives both men credit. Now that these POV edits have been reverted, please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the appropriate talk pages rather than edit-war. If you want to do an RfC, you can do that as well. But the vast majority of books and articles on Batman, Kane and Finger credit both of them together. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Betty Logan. Your recent edit to the page List of highest-grossing films appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geoffrey Chaucer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Geoffrey Chaucer

added a link pointing to King Henry IV

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of works published posthumously, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Road Runner. 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) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Your recent edit on List of works published posthumously concerning Charles Laughton in Advise & Consent did not appear to be relevant to the article so I deleted the information; please see WP:TOPIC. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of the Palaces, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlo Rossi and Charles Cameron. 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) 10:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw. I was going by the current scholarly consensus, which seems to favor most of Brian Vickers's results. Most scholars agree on Middleton, Peele, etc., as is pretty much said in all the articles whose templates I changed -- hence, why I changed them; but if you want Wikipedia to not accurately represent the current consensus of scholars, go right ahead. Stolengood (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles Laughton. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 17:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

How exactly is this PD? The image page claims that it was first published outside the US before 1923, but that can't possibly be true because Steamboat Willie was released in 1928 by the Walt Disney Co. in the United States. If you can justify the public domain status, then by all means let's use it, but I don't think you can. I'm fairly certain there are no films created by Disney that are PD. After all, US copyright law was specifically amended to extend the length of copyright protection to benefit Disney and other film studios. As such, I'm taking the pic back out and adding to WP:PUF. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

All right. Well, I'll still try to substitute another pic in order to make it "pictured", at least. I'm sorry; you just kept automatically reverting everything I did, and I got frustrated. Stolengood (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shaw University is not eligible for inclusion due to the orange-level maintenance tag. I know it wasn't there when you did the edit because I added it. One part of the job is vetting the articles to make sure they are of good enough quality to be featured. Also, don't put in 6 items because that will make OTD too long and throw off the left-right balance of the Main Page. Finally, you need to add the notes on the talk page. —howcheng {chat} 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry; only realized I'd put six in by mistake after it was locked in. And I thought Shaw University was eligible -- sorry about that. :-( Stolengood (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not claiming I WP:OWN OTD by any means and I do appreciate your help because it means I can be done faster. I definitely have tried to keep any changes you've made, but I've been doing this on a daily basis for 4 years now and there are a lot of little nuances to the job that I've learned over that time, which I tried to write down in WP:OTDRULES. It's hard when you're starting out. It's like driving; when you're learning you have to really think about checking the mirrors, deciding when to start braking, etc, and after a while it starts to become automatic, and then one day you realize you've just gone 10 minutes on autopilot and you just now noticed. Anyway, my point is I'm glad for the assistance and I apologize if I've caused any frustration. Just think of me (to continue the analogy) as the driving instructor who might suddenly slam on that brake pedal in the passenger side because you started to creep out into the intersection and forgot to look left and are about to get plowed by an oncoming car (that actually happened to me when I was learning to drive at age 15). —howcheng {chat} 08:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's all right; I completely understand. Thank you. :-) Stolengood (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The reason I pulled Granma (yacht) out is that next year it will be its 60th anniversary, so it will get preference for inclusion, and if it's on this year that will mean it gets 3 years in a row. However, taking Enron out was fine because I didn't notice there were so many US items. If it were me now, I would replace Granma with Benazir Bhutto or Napoleon III, but I will leave it up to you. Please make sure you update the notes on the talk page when you're done. —howcheng {chat} 16:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend Napoleon III personally, but is the page linked to him up to snuff? Wasn't sure if it was eligible or not. I can't put it in, now; you'd have to do that yourself. But that's just my recommendation. Stolengood (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Reed. 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) 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have stopped. I apologize for my actions; I did not mean to cause so much fuss. Stolengood (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

petulia - i know the film quite well - but the doubling up of the cast list in the second para and then list below is a bit disconcerting and needs to be cleaned up - you have a pref of which we move out? cheers JarrahTree 09:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi; I recommend we move out the second para. Streamlines the article better, that way... and it is a MASSIVE chunk. Also, could we get a fuller plot synopsis? Stolengood (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you can wait a few weeks - I have it on dvd but very little spare time in short term - when i first saw it when it first came out it was very close to the graduate,midnight cowboy and bullitt (need to differentiate the details from an ageing brain), but I have to get my janis joplin frame of ref, in the right space to watch it again - lester's style is probably as important as the plot, there is sure to be stuff on his style and the effect it had on others - he was on a high at the time as he had done stuff with the beatles as well...(i love the bits with the nuns in porsches) JarrahTree 09:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Take all the time you need. :-) Stolengood (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

If I am not careful, I'll probably wander over to see how well lester's style of that time is written up, and find i get lost in that rabbit warren.JarrahTree 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

hahah, er - imbd=

A corrosive look at the American upper-middle-class and the fragmentation of American society, "Petulia" is one of the great, if unheralded, American films. Propelled by the luminous presence of Julie Christie and the powerhouse performance of George C. Scott, "Petulia" was a success at the box office, although some critics were upset over the blackness of the comedy. It was to prove to be his last great film awks, and he is still alive in his mid 80s... JarrahTree 09:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Edwin Denby (poet)

added a link pointing to Broadway

The Italian Straw Hat (play)

added a link pointing to Dana Stevens

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

What a shame since he tried to protect the Cherokees which says a lot about him. By the way, where did you learn about Erysipelas as a course of his death? I am talking about your recent edit at [4]. --Taterian (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I dug it up today after looking for it. Think it was on a government website; give me a few minutes to check back. Stolengood (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't bother as websites mainly copy each other; I thought a new biography popped up. The thing is, William Wirt's cause of death became a part of controversy as Pro-masonic sources claimed that he contracted St. Anthony's fire after he accepted nomination from Anti-Masonic Party which the other side denied. As a result, American National Biography simply states: "He died in Washington, D.C., after a short illness." William Vaughn writes about a cold "that was followed by complications." Anyhow, Kennedy is good enough to introduce erysipelas in his biography, check if this satisfies you [5]. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --Taterian (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:PVZCK.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commander in Chief (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dee Johnson. 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) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

In June 2010, you were asked not to mark changes that alter content as "minor". Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits as defined at Help:Minor edit, i.e. typographical corrections, formatting changes, reversion of clear-cut vandalism or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Any edit that modifies, adds, or removes content is not "minor". Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

These are not minor edits: [6][7]. Please do not mark your edits as minor when they are not. If you continue to mark insertion or alteration of content as minor, you are at risk of being blocked for disruptive editing. DrKay (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are continuing to tag edits as minor even though they are not minor, e.g. removal of content, significant change to content. This is your final warning. You will blocked from editing if you continue to label substantive edits as minor. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, V for Vendetta (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Template:Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Don Cuan (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but her article is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 7 because there is a section tagged as needing additional references. Please see WP:OTDRULES for more info. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Revised; those sections unnecessary or "needing" additional references" have been removed. Upon closer inspection, they added nothing to the article. With these revisions, and looking at the overall article (which is well-researched and excellent), I think Jean Harlow can now be included. Stolengood (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The last 3 paragraphs in that section are also missing citations, but even if you get those, she's not going to make it in this year. We've got Gwendolyn Brooks in for her 100th birthday (which takes precedence), so a second American is going to be too much. I'll put her in the pool for a future appearance (probably in 2 years, because next year will be Nikki Giovanni's 75th birthday, or maybe we'll get her on her birthday instead), though, on the presumption that you'll take care of those at some point. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's the 80th anniversary of her death. Don't we do historical anniversaries around here, especially significant ones? An article doesn't have to be perfect for its subject to merit a commemoration -- no article would ever be listed, that way. Stolengood (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nobody says it has to be a GA or FA, but it must be well-referenced. The Main Page is supposed to feature quality work. Regardless, we only have 3 spaces for births/deaths and we want diversity in terms of date, nationality, and subject when possible (there are days when we have a dearth of eligible articles). So Gwendolyn Brooks gets priority because it's her 100th birthday, and because she's an American and her death year is also in the 20th century and we have other eligible articles, that means Jean Harlow is out. Next year it will similar because it will be Nikki Giovanni's 75th birthday. Unfortunately for Harlow, it's just these circumstances that prevent her from being included. —howcheng {chat} 16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

...I suppose I can wait another 10 years for the 90th, if two years from now isn't in the cards. *shrugs* Oh, well. (Jean Harlow is American, too, though -- don't know why that makes a difference, but...) Stolengood (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, do you have a reliable source for your claim that Mr. Kilbride and Ralf Belmont were partners? I was doing a quick research on the internet and couldn't find anything ... Thanks, --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I thought I did... been a while since I edited that article. Let me see... Stolengood (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I was just creating a German page for Kilbride and couldn't find anything. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just give me a little bit of time... might've been in a period article or a retrospective one, somewhere... Stolengood (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, So a lot of your edits are not accurate or change the meaning of sentences. For instance, are you adding "near-total" because of a specific source or because its your opinion? Abe Lehr was the head of the studio and, as stated in the body of the article, took a hands off approach while Thalberg was directly involved in the making of the film and was a producer. The source specifically called the studio "The Goldwyn Company", so it should stay that way even if the Wikipedia article reflects a different name (names constantly changed at this time). I'm also not sure why you are doing so much CE for a FA article with several copy edits. For instance, changing During the making of Greed to After the making of Greed is historically inaccurate and contradicted by the cited body of the article. I respectfully ask you to not revert cited material.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. But the article specifically states (as does history) that Thalberg did not start overseeing MGM (and thereby Stroheim) until 1924 -- which was after filming (and, thus, production) on Greed had completed in 1923. Greed was, at that point, in its editing phase, which is post-production -- thus, Irving Thalberg was not involved in the production of Greed, and was not a producer on it. Abe Lehr, however, being the head of the studio, was the man who provided the money for Stroheim to make the film; thus, he is a producer. I probably should have specified "after the production of Greed", rather than "making of" -- it is a tricky line to thread, but the point is that Stroheim only lost control of his film during the editing process, which is what I was trying to say; he had complete control (to a point, as the "McTeague's mother's funeral" story shows) during production, and it was only when Thalberg was brought into the newly-formed MGM and started overseeing Stroheim's cutting of Greed that things went irrecoverably south. Stolengood (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Right, but a producer's job is not limited to production. A producer is often directly involved from pre-production all the way to marketing and release. In this case Thalberg was a hands on producer from the moment that he became involved. He was the producer of this film, for better or for worse. He did famously never take on screen credit while he was alive, but he was the producer. To call someone a producer is not simply an honorific title, its a job. von Stroheim was the producer of this film until Thalberg became involved.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, are you definitely using the source that is already in the article (Lennig) for the addition of the info regarding John Emerson? Also, you really are mistaken about the Lehr/Thalberg thing.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greed (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin Frobisher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Luttrell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbara La Marr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vamp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at List of works published posthumously shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 18:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbara La Marr, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rex Ingram and Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source that Kilbride was gay? Nothing shows through an online search. Ralf Belmont's IMDb page even says that he had a wife, who died in 1947. You claim they got together in 1946. And, again, an online search shows nothing. Everything I can find says they were friends, but mentions nothing about being romantic partners.

Dpm12 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Dpm12 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Strangers of the Night, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I had to undo your edit here, as your version was far too long. We don't have to give all the details in the blurb. Just enough to get pique the reader's interest. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 01:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wickedjacob (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Files for discussion notices from files or remove other people's comments in Files for discussion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of a file, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:HeathLedger Clerkenwell2008.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) 03:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Mélencron. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Mélencron (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mélencron (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw that you added William McKinley to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 14. He was already listed on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 6, although the link was not in bold, so I removed it from the 14th and made it bold on the 6th. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 18.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stolengood (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I realize I should not have put a non-free image in the template, but I was trying to feature it with a relevant image -- I couldn't find a non-free one. I should have just not tried to have the image go with the anniversary I put in, the image being non-free. I'm sorry for screwing that up; I won't put a non-free image into a main page template again.

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I think you also need to explain why you were edit-warring at that page.[8] DrKay (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

DrKay, I think I was being stupidly stubborn. I didn't realize until after I had put the picture into the infobox that the copyright kept it from being used on the main page, but I think I rather stupidly thought it should stay there. I realize now that I should've just tried to find another, free image, rather than that poster image which was not free. Unfortunately, I also don't think I realized the severity of what I was doing until I was blocked -- it was dumb of me to keep doing that. If I am unblocked, I will not do that again -- I will check to see if an image is fair use or out of copyright before trying to put it in a main page infobox again. I should have known better than to do that, having been here as long as I have; I'm sorry for screwing that up. Stolengood (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

JJMC89, I'm sorry for not getting back to you before, regarding your comments on your own talk page -- I'm just a bit intimidated by the list of questions provided I need to answer. I'm not sure how letter-perfect I should be, with them. :-( Sorry about that. Stolengood (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stolengood (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Copyright is the exclusive right given to the creator of a creative work to reproduce that work; however, it is subject to limitations, such as fair use. Wikipedia is licenced under several different licences, but using copyrighted content without prior permission of its creator/owner could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia; if you want to use copyrighted content, you must contact its creator/owner. Otherwise, it is better to create for Wikipedia copyrighted content yourself that can be used on Wikipedia without any legal trouble. I intend to carefully make sure any content or creative work I post on Wikipedia in the future is either in the public domain or falls under the licences needed for it to be used on Wikipedia; if it does not, I will not use it under any circumstances. Stolengood (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You did not identify the licenses for Wikipedia content. Also, just contacting the creator/owner of copyrighted work is entirely insufficient. Additionally, you seem to have completely missed WP:FAIRUSE. Yamla (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry; I wasn't sure if I was supposed to list every license by name. I wasn't sure how long my unblock request was supposed to be. Furthermore, I did mention fair use, but only briefly -- if I ask for another unblock, I'll go into more detail about it. Stolengood (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Howcheng, I just wanted to say thank you for bringing up my case amongst the mods last month. Thank you so much for speaking up for me, and giving me the benefit of the doubt. I don't know how many unblock requests I am still able to ask for, at this point, but thank you for at least giving me a shot at it. I hope you see this. Stolengood (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:C. Aubrey Smith color.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:George Arliss color1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:MilosMilos.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) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply