Alizaa2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Alizaa2, 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! — ξ^xplicit 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Keek

Your removal of contant from this page has been undone as the removal of the content was not warranted. The content that was removed falls under public domain and thus does not hold under copyright laws. Please refrain from further attempts at removing this content as it will be viewed as vandalism to the page and you will be blocked from further editing Wikipedia. 24.246.46.214 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Phil

Thank for adding the information it really helps improve the article. Cheers --Kyle1278 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Phillip DeFranco

Just hoping for you to clarify something, I'm wondering how my deletion of that section of the article is vandalizing, the section I removed has no place in an encyclopedia, it's entirely the personal opinion of the user that placed it there, and the reference it is taken from, is an interview with a British youtuber who makes the aforementioned comment, I'm not sure how you can construe that as a valid source. please give me your side of the argument, as I'm failing to see how it was vandalising. 81.86.244.17 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

After the posting of my original comment I see you have on multiple times undone the work of people trying to delete the section, which you seem to think deserves a place in the article, at what point your reason for said revision was 'says so in the Guardian dumb ass' this makes me wonder if you have even read the article from which the reference was taking, or wether you just have an intense disliking for Phillip De Franco, either way I suggest you take a step back, because right now your attitude is just putting people off. 81.86.244.17 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The guardian article is almost entirely composed of a British youtubers ideas, including the comments you feel are so necessary to the page, this goes against Wikipedia:NPOV please would you just think about this rationally, if you read the article it is clear these are opinions of the interviewee, not solid fact that the Guardian have checked, and the comment you have used, 'that if I watch it myself I'll see' is entirely your own opinion and again not fact, and not relevant to this article81.86.244.17 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you can see evidence, true evidence for the thumbnail changing and only the thumbnail changing put it in there, but do not use some article as reference when that is only composed of a single persons opinions, not facts, opinions, with some further searching I see it was you who added the section that started this dispute, and you have since then stubbornly insisted on reverting the edits of anyone trying to change it, I think you should take a step back and realize that this article and that section are not your property, and that if many people feel your section is irrelevant it is not vandals, trying to stop your hard work, it may be because your wrong and the reference you are so stubbornly sticking to is irrelevant and not of neutral opinion 81.86.244.17 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That isn't really what I meant, your still using a youtubers opinions to back up claims of the show's decline in quality and when I mentioned true evidence I did not mean a simple link to Sxephil's userpage on youtube, especially since there are still examples where your thumbnail rule does not exist, still my argument is not that you do not have references(although you don't) it was that this information is not needed or necessary in an encyclopedia as solid fact, a section denoting criticism would be fine but you are presenting it as fact which it is not 81.86.244.17 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation and civility issues

Please stop adding poorly referenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page as you did at Philip DeFranco. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Also be civil in your edit-summaries and discussions with other users. If you continue in the current vein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Instead, I recommend that you discuss the issue on the article talk-page. Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco

I have restored the history of this article, as you asked at REFUND. There is nothing useful in the history of sxephil - two of the revisions are attack pages, and the other two say only that he is a Youtube celebrity: "a 22 year old celebrity on YouTube. risen from the slums and the ghetto to the screen of stardom... " and "currently a top person on the video sharing website youtube. He was one of the few selected by youtube to join into the youtube gathering" (whatever that means). JohnCD (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Philly D

While I don't mind the merging of The Vloggity and FHP with The PDS, I do mind that you decided to take it upon yourself to do the merging without any formal discussion on the relating article's talk page. Try communicating any disagreements next time. Thanks. Bobcatwaterlion (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco

Philip DeFranco does not need achievements outside of YouTube to be an famous on the internet. Some people are in the category merely for being famous on Vine or Instagram. However, DeFranco does have nearly a million followers on Twitter, over a million on Facebook and over half a million on Instagram. He has a popular podcast on Soundcloud and numerous credits on IMDB as a producer and writer. What more do you need? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Alizaa2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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