Notanipokay
Hi Notanipokay. I fixed your new shortcut, WP:CTDAPE, the other day. (See here and here). It wasn’t going directly to the section because the anchor had the same name as the section heading. To work, anchors cannot have the same name as any section heading in the article in which one is trying to set an anchor. I can’t say I got it in one; it took several tries. I came across it because I have WP:DE watchlisted. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- thank you! i was having a hell of a time trying to figure the mechanics of that one out. Notanipokay (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, I was wondering if we could come up with something a little more mnemonic than WP:CTDAPE? It’s a bit awkward. Since it’s on the disruptive editing page, what about WP:DEPE where DE=disruptive editing and PE=productive editors? Of course, we can have both! There’s no rule against more than one shortcut going to a policy section/page. What do you think of WP:DEPE? (It’s currently not in use.) Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- that sounds much better. go for it.99.168.87.155 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- As a piece of friendly advice, now that you have a registered account, you should try to avoid editing without logging in (i.e., editing from an IP). In (article) talk namespace, it could be construed as sock puppetting. Also, it gives out personal information that you may not want others seeing. — SpikeToronto 09:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:ZZ34C3F20B.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:ZZ34C3F20B.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. [Truncated]... Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- i've contacted the owner of the image. haven't heard back yet, but then it's late. if you want, you can go ahead and delete, and i'll upload later when i have the info.Notanipokay (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
American politics discretionary sanctions notice edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yea okay. Thanks for the warning, officer. I haven't edited anything on the Betsy Ross page and was explicit about my intention to not edit it, so you can unclench. Notanipokay (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yet the next day you did this: [[1]]. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- And it stood because it reflected the consensus that the vandalism by the brigade of the previous days didn't merit inclusion. Notanipokay (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
July 2019 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Might Is Right, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I raised this with you on your talk page. We'll address it there. I wasn't surprised to see there are others you've flown off the handle at recently. Notanipokay (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)