User talk:Garion96/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Flags in golfer infoboxes

Flag icons in infoboxes are "discouraged" not forbidden per wp:mosicon. They are commonly used in the golf world (European Tour profiles, PGA Tour profiles, leaderboards on those and other sites, etc. I'm reverting the changes you made to several golfers articles. Tewapack (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I think you should perhaps defer to the long-standing practices of editors who actually work on these articles. Removing them in the manner you have, with no substantial rationale or discussion, is frankly not what I expect of an apparently vastly experienced editor (more so given you are an admin). It is precisely that kind of editing that precipitates edit wars. _wjemather^bigissue 09:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy template

You removed them all already, didn't you? My browser was starting to slow down and I need to reboot, then I was going to do that. I, however, was distracted too long. I removed the filmography part of the template and left a note for the creator. Thanks for cleaning up after me, I was a wayward child. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law

Hi. If you have time, could you please look in at Jude Law and Talk:Jude Law regarding the edits of one editor (essentially a Jude Law single purpose account who first ended up pushing the section covering Law's appearance in Hamlet in Great Britain and the US. It has become a problem. First the section grew until it was as large as either the complete 1990s or the 2000s sections, because the editor insisted on adding every positive review from London that was written, and in a couple of cases, cherrypicked only the small positive parts from a couple overall negative reviews. Another editor reduced the section and left critical review on both sides of the fence. When that happened, the first editor removed all critic reviews citing "no need for any reviews, because of a maintain a neutral, unbiased POV. (WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, WP:NEU)". I returned it and then he came in and challenged everything. This is getting to be a problem. Also, just to mention, he's notorious for not responding. In the 2 1/2 years he's edited on Wikipedia, he's posted once to an article talk page - in late 2007, and once to another user talk page - in late 2008. Other eyes would be great. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OJ Simpson info box removal

I noticed you removed the infobox that contained legal information about [Oj_simpson]. I believe the infobox was active for quite awhile and it contained very valuable information. Other portions of the article however could use some clean-up. Was the infobox removed because you feel it shouldn't be there or was there a reason it was removed that would benefit others?Woods01 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks...

red means stop? It seemed like such a (quite surprising) mixed response that I'm not sure what to say. You're the administrator. :) I think I was fairly clear with what I said - he's deliberately keeping the list free of redlinks, which is not, in my view, at all in the spirit of what WP:REDLINKS says. I was a bit taken aback by the responses. I am anxious to see what Erik says, but he's not been around this week. Maybe on holiday? What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre. I had no clue you were irrational. Geez, what does that make me? I've begun to notice that I end up involved in nearly as many disagreements as an administrator. Still, I do not want to be one. Let's hope Erik pops in with rationality, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzies

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I know why the WP:FILM people have not commented yet. I know Erik isn't thrilled with them, but then, he's not been back yet to edit. Any ideas on how to raise the awareness of this discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talkheader

What's the problem? I'm partecipating to the 2009 Tag & Assess Drive for the WP:Films WikiProject. If I find an article talk page without the talkheader template then I add the template to the talk page. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(IMHO) All articles' talk pages need the talkheader. The articles here on WikipediA are read by millions of people and the majority of them are not so familiar with Internet and WikipediA. They do not know waht a discussion page is and how to use it, and that template could help. I read those old/archived posts /o\... and I got a migraine. I find that idea of the bot that automatically adds the talkheader really smart! Have a great week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NO! If and only if it is necessary, and by using common sense and good editorial judgment, and by following informations, policies and guidelines in Talk page, Talk page templates, Wikipedia Guide to Talk page Layout, Talk page formatting, Talk page guidelines.... –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

idk... wikipedia is having prob and i had a couple of pages ready to be saved... probably that page was one of them. i wrote something in the template talk page... please, read it when you have time. anyway, i thought i was doing a good thing by adding that tl to all those pages ~ lol ~ cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you Garion96! Karim Masri (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Homo Futurus image for Barbara Rosenthal page

I have been trying to put this up for a long time. It was recently deleted by an editor, MBisanz, who says on his page that he's going to law school and will only be checking in sporadically, so I'm writing to you because you wrote to me in the past. The artist is located in the picture next to her artwork. I took the photo. She has given me permission to use herself and her artwork in the photo, and to use it on Wikipedia. I am sure I noted that fact, and the fact that I want copyright credit and notification if this image is to be used in any other way. I can't find my way back to the code for this. And every time I work with this image I am asked to start all over again and enter the whole description and everything. Can you find my photo, please, and just add the correct code for what I just wrote you, and get the image, with the text below it, back onto the Barbara Rosenthal page? Billcreston (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bad faith edits?

Please adjust your edit summary for the future. Since when is removing unsourced content from a completely sourced list a bad faith edit? Garion96 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I let my frustration show.

Nevertheless, it is not good practice to arbitrarily remove contributions from other editors without at least affording an opportunity for the editor to explain or justify their edits (including adding missing references). The best way to accomplish that is with a "citation needed" tag (a friendly mail message is helpful too). Granted if there is a genuine reason to think that the edits are vandalism, blatant fraud, or in some other way a significant and obvious violation of WP policy then, yes, a quick removal is justified. In this specific case the original edits contained links to well-sourced articles so there was no legitimate basis to think that the information was fraudulent in any way. Hence the reason I took offense. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your edits weren't necessarily "bad faith," though you have removed sourced facts regarding Hong Kong from List of red-light districts. But the larger problem is that it's not actually necessary to have a citation for every single entry on that list. Per WP:Verifiability, a citation is needed for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. There are many well known red-light districts that are not listed simply because some editors have prosecuted a campaign of removing unsourced entries without regard to likelihood of challenge. It's a larger issue and I think I'll post on the talk page about it as it's gotten out of hand. Someidiot (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I use often enough, but to add these tags to a completely sourced article is just degrading the article. If your edits were blatant vandalism or something like that I wouldn't even have bothered with an edit summary but would have just rollbacked your edits. I stated in my summary "remove unsourced", you understood that, so why bother with a message on your talk? Yes, these messages are nice but sometimes you can never get anything done that way. Plus it really is (and is now done) up to you to provide sources. I didn't had time (or at that moment interest) to look for the sources myself. Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, again, I'm sorry. I was being unnecessarily nasty.

I wasn't suggesting that you should look for sources only that removing text every time it doesn't technically meet standards is not necessarily the most efficient approach.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the best way to link to a diff, but here:[1] you removed sourced info on Hong Kong. Someidiot (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Looks like you have your work cut out for you. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

userpage edit

Thanks for changing that on my page there, I was confused as to why it wasn't working. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome!

Thank you for your welcome! Your friend, Karim Masri (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to see your name pop up on my watchlist. I hadn't seen you lately and had considered stopping by to see if you were about. So, hi. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Joropo.jpg

You deleted File:Joropo.jpg, but this file doesn't appear to be available at commons. Is it under a different name? — RockMFR 15:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wjemather has found and fixed them all. Yay! — RockMFR 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, but shouldn't you have warned the uploader first? Or is it customary for you to delete images wihout warning? I was the original uploader, and I protest! AVM (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas template

Hi Garion96,

I saw your edits to the Christmas template ({{Christmas}}). You agree with me right? Stupid IPs... :/ --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 16:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it makes the image too large and unwieldly if every single christmas movie or music has been added to it. And it makes the template an easy target for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Garion96 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Duff

Would you please take a look at this article and the way that Chasewc91 is deleting content, which includes the entire personal life section? His current edit summary includes "3rr has passed, so removing the tabloidy personal life section again." I reverted it, noting that waiting 24 hours does not relief one from violating the intent of 3RR. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Nothing in there is violating WP:NPA, as far as I can see. If you'd like to discuss the matter and attempt to come to consensus instead of giving orders from on high, I would be open to that. Yzak Jule (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg

Just a question, you recently closed the FFD discussion on this image File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg, I had assumed the discussion also covered the few hundred other similar images uploaded [2] as mentioned at the start of the discussion. As you only deleted the nominated image do we have to create the 200+ deletion discussions for all the others? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year!

Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on both accounts

I wish I could say I took that photo, but I cobbed from someone else. Heh. Hilary has calmed down, but only because Brittany Murphy has roared to the front! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Public domain is my hero! As for the Murphy thing, think Karen Carpenter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! That's me all over the place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

Hold on, please...

As far as the rollbacks, here's what happened: I haven't even been home at my computer since before 2pm PST. While I was gone, I did try to view some stuff on my watchlist from my cellphone because of the events of today surrounding a Wikiette report I filed. My phone is a touchscreen, and at times it is difficult to get it to respond on the right spot - when I thought I was hitting "diff", my finger must have hit "rollback" both times. I'm sorry for the error, but it really was beyond my control. Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

List of people on the autism spectrum

Since you seem to be one of the most prolific editors on this article, I'd like to ask you a question. I notice a lot of "List of ..." articles state that only people who meet WP:N should be on the list, while others don't seem to. Which category does this page go in? Is there a blanket rule I'm unaware of that applies to all "list of living people" pages, or does each page have to come its own individual consensus? I recently removed a redlink from the page, but felt unsure about doing so unilaterally, as unlike many of the other entires I've removed, this one at least has a reference. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Palin

The article Michael Palin, to which you seem to be among the main contributors, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi. Back in the middle of the Kate Winslet GA review, an editor (Abie the Fish Peddler) popped up and proceeded to do a complete rewrite of the article. I spoke against it, as did various other editors, objecting to the actions during the GA review and recommending that he stop. This led to questions in the GA review about stability of the article, effectively throwing the outcome into jeopardy. He finally stepped back and it passed. Two days after it passed, he popped in again, replaced a complete section with a rewrite, reverted it as a test edit, and basically posted a talk page comment about doing so and wanting to force discussion of it. The next post after that was from an editor with whom Abie regularly discusses things on their talk pages, telling him what a good job it was. I challenged that post as well. In my view, his actions also throw the entire GA review into question yet again. His post started out saying he knew he wasn't popular because of what he did (which seemed a little bit challenging to me). I posted a query about why he acted as he did earlier, and why he was acting as he is now. He not only refused to answer, he attacked me for questioning him about it, refusing to answer after 4 separate queries into his motivation, and basically saying my questions were uncivil and threatened to go to an adminstrator because I was being "uncivil" and challenging my "tone". To my mind, he is being assaultive in manner and by refusing to answer a valid question about why he would proceed to jeopardize a good article review and still continue to try and force discussion about a rewrite within a week of the GA passing, seems a bit pointy and aggressive to me. Could you please take a look at what is going on and let me know if my questions about motivation of action are improper? Why would anyone want to do this, anyway? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Future road template

I notice that you deleted {{Future road}} in September, marking it with CSD G6 (technical deletion) with no reason given. I did find a deletion discussion from 2006 resulting in a keep consensus for the template.

Do you happen to remember if there was a template created to replace {{Future road}}? I can't seem to find one. I'd like to put some sort of proposed road template on Maryland Route 200.

Thanks. Tckma (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Future templates are deprecated and should not be used anymore on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Garion96 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

TOC

Okay, I read. Thanks for pointing that out. Seems to be quite a debate. Can you point out a TOCleft that looks awkward and one that looks good? Thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Capote. The white space is mostly filled. Pepso2 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:National Register of Historic Places

Hi Garion. I am very concerned with the generic gross overuse of this template. To me reading the articles, most of them small stubs on localised places it is very irrating to keep seeing this at the footer which is way too generic to be included at the foot of every article. It would be MUCH more beneficial to the reader to have navigation templates which serve a useful purpose. e.g linking the actual historic place articles within that given county rather than a overly generic one. If you agree, can we open up a discussion on it, preferably one which involves the whole community as I feel this template is grossly overused with minimum benefit. I would recommend that the example of Template:Nevada State Historic Places/White Pine replaces the current overused one by county so it serves a useful purpose of linking articles together and also connects to the lists at the foot of them, specifically to Nevada historic places rather than the generic database listings. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Top 20 Singles of 2006

I wanted to include the WPNZ tag on a talk page and saw that it had previously been deleted by you: New Zealand Top 20 Singles of 2006. Last time I came across a notice like this, there was a link to the deletion discussion, but not here. So can I ask you to have a look at this and see whether the previous concerns have been sorted, or whether the new article has the same concerns? (I'll keep an eye on your response on your talk page) Schwede66 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing lists as Copyvios?

I'm a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, so this is an honest question. Why do you keep removing the list of names from the article about the 100 Greatest African Americans? Lists of names are not copyrightable (in the United States at least, see the US Supreme Court's decision on Feist Publications v Rural Telephone) and Wikipedia allows them (see articles Forbes 400 or Fortune 500).

The article may be deleted anyway because the publication might not be considered notable, so this question could soon be moot. But I'm trying to get an understanding of how copyright violations are determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReferencePlz (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback notice

Don't you have any real problem users to bother? User:Wildhartlivie is allowed to harrass my with impunity, and you say nothing to him/her? Hypocrite. - BilCat (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I only saw the rollback you did. From looking at the comment you left at her talk, the rollback and this comment, it does look on a first glance you are the problem user here. Garion96 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I'm glad to know that is removing large amounts of article text repeatedly, without justification, as in James Garner, and making fun of users with dyslexia is not a problem with you. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Several comments were left w/ edit summaries and rationale, and I'd point out that the imbedded notes you left in the Garner article [3], you edit warred over the content to the point of receiving a 3RR notice and the fact that you once again misused your rollback [4] and then made an issue about it [5] speaks to who is making problematic edits. Tsk. Tsk. Oh, and I see no mention on your talk or user pages about dyslexia, but Wikipedia does not accept inappropriate user conduct based on a medical condition. It's been tried before, didn't work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your "neutral" comments. As for your slander (or is it libel - I can't remember) about me misusing my rollbacks on my user page, users are allowed to use rollbacks to clean up their own pages. Did you even notice that I rollbacked a warning I had accidentally issued to myself? As to the dyslexia comments, they were strictly limited to the user's uncivil way of making fun of my pelling erors, not in any way an excuse for my behavior, as my coomments clearly show. Yet you've issued no warning to this user regarding such comments. But not a surprise in any way. Aparently any wrong doing on my part excuses the bad behavior of others, including a 3RR warning form the very user who was "edit wariing" with me! At this point, I can't see how you're dealing with me in good faith, and any further unneutral responses, warnings, or administrative actions on your part againt me will be appealead inb the relevant place. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To be totally clear (since this user has been misinterpreting my comments already): All references to "filing action" are only to those allowed within WP, and on WP itself. I am NOT making legal threats here in any way, merely talking of admin review and the like. - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Garion, I somehow totally missed that the last comments were made by Wild, not by you. - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ISO 639

Thanks, on was a typo but then it got a little messy. Those templates should really be protected, but there are several hundred of them. Maybe a cascaded page.. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

Template:Infobox The Office season 1 episode list

I created this template, unaware that there was previously a similarly-named template that you deleted. If it is found (again) to be unnecessary, don't hesitate to delete it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

rv hilary duff films

why did you revert an improvent more accurated Loquesoy (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal Lector Series

Hi

Just checking on the reversal of the edit to The Silence of the Lambs.

The chronological order of the story-lines is as follows:

Hannibal Rising 2007

Red Dragon 2002 / Manhunter 1986

The Silence of the Lambs 1991

Hannibal 2001

The current "Preceded by" and "Followed by" titles don't flow properly in the above sequence.

Thanks

--AirWolf21 (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PBSKids

Hello Garion96, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

BLP IMDB refimprove

I got your note to my Talk page, regarding my edit that replaced "BLP unsourced" by {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} on the Stephanie Pakrul article. You objected to the emphasis in that tag upon the IMDB reference, and suggested it should be used only when an article has only an IMDB tag. Actually, there is {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} which is appropriate for such cases. I and others have tagged over 1,000 articles recently with the BLP IMDB-only refimprove tag and about 1600 articles with BLP IMDB refimprove. For this one, which has several sources (at least in the form of external links), it is appropriate to remove the BLP unsourced tag and put in place one version or another of BLP refimprove, instead. I just revisited the article to put in the simple BLP refimprove, omitting mention of the IMDB. It would be better, IMHO, to use the BLP IMDB refimprove tag, to communicate to editors of that article that better-than-IMDB sources are wanted for the article, but i don't care particularly in the case of one article whether the general issue with IMDB as a source is raised there or not. Does that help? Thanks for getting in touch about this. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. Also, by the way, you catch me as i am very nearly finished with my effort, with others, to go through all the articles in the "BLP unsourced" category and recategorize those which do have at least IMDB as a source. I am on the very last few out of what were 45,000 in the category. Perhaps that is helpful for u to know, that there will not be many more getting either tag right now. Also, the IMDB tags were developed and discussed at wt:URBLP, where you could browse the previous discussion to learn more, or comment, if you like. --doncram (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actors

I'm not at all bothered by the archiving of that dreadful discussion. But there is a note about unreferenced BLPs that I really think needs to stay so that others will begin to work on them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much. I've been looking at it, anyways. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to replace previous version of image

You deleted a copyright image that was uploaded to commons. [6]

A user had overridden a previous version of a completely different image under that file name. (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PrimeViper_overriding_existing_images_with_uploads_of_copyright_material). Can you review the image history and restore the original image if it meets our FAIR in this article. Da Adventures of Pedro Penduko If it doesnt, please feel free to revert my edit. / [7] Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem editor who inserts "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" material.

You may also wish to monitor the Leon Schlesingerand Tedd Pierce articles as the same problem editor has been inserting the same objectionable material in those articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Expand

Since you participated in the last TFD for {{Expand}}, I'm letting you know that I have formed a DRV. You can find it here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ani

Why did you revert my edit on the ani page?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

ActivPrayer

Hi Garion96!

I would like to see if you could please userfy the article that I created entitled "ActivPrayer" - I would like to add into the article why it is relevant and important. I didn't have a change to add a "holdon" tag before it was deleted this morning. Among other reasons, this organization (which I read about in Spirituality & Health magazine, I will provide a copy if you would like) is the first publicly religious, for-profit "business", which allows Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths to pray openly in a group fitness setting. I will detail the controversy and the relevance and impact on society. Surprisingly, I found (after a club opened down the street from me) that they are larger than CrossFit, a fitness movement for which there is a Wikipedia article. I will provide additional solid references in major publications. I apologize for not providing additional details the first time, but I will be sure to add some more meat to it. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorkenneth (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)