User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive6

Archive

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your editing privileges have been suspended indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

A review of the archives indicates that you have not changed your attitude or tone in over two years; you are confrontational when criticised, and resort to calling other editors trolls, and justify your actions as being correct (and the charming habit of forbidding editors to continue posting on your page with content you do not wish to read). Since you seem unwilling to moderate your attitude, I have removed your editing privileges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since I can't leave this message on your talk page, I shall do it here and hope that you read it. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been the easiest person to get along with and yes, I have been unnecessarily combative at times. Was that any justification for an automatic block? Absolutely not. First of all, the AN/I report here should not have been considered, as it was made under absolutely false pretenses, as I stated in my response to the charges. The user in question said I was trolling the page- I wasn't. The user said I restored a comment he had deleted for no justified reason- I had one, and I presented it to him once asked for it. He did not want to consider my reasoning, based solely on his bias toward the website it came from. The use of the term "sore loser", as it were, came into play because he was conducting himself with a rather snotty and condescending attitude that I did not appreciate and told him as such, making the point that his refusal to consider the other side of the argument made him seem petty. He called me delusional for pointing out that he had not waited for consensus on the dispute before removing the cited statement from the page. His motives made little to no sense, as he didn't give me any clear indication why he would think the way he did. Had he done so, we wouldn't have had the problem we had had.

This user also lied in regards to the message I left to the anonymous IP he cited. I never threatened to ban anyone or do anything to anyone at my discretion- nor would I considering I do not possess that power. I took the IP's opinion with quite a grain of salt, as a check of its user contributions revealed a rather long trail of disruptive editing and at least one suspension for said editing, and told him that if it continued, he would be blocked again. At no point did I say I was going to be the one doing the blocking- again, I do not possess that power, so why would I threaten to use it?

He also made an assumption about my editing habits that was completely false and damaging, without understanding a couple of things. One, that after I was warned to stop, in all cases but one I STOPPED. Second, I HAVE been punished for it before. His declaration that if he was forced to interact with me again should've given you an even larger clue as to the motives behind his claim filing, as well as his contradictory statement about lies "making his blood boil", as he did not have a problem lying about me.

I've never forbidden anyone from talking on my talk page. Never. However, I will admit to have made statements concerning continued disputes on my talk page that might be construed as such. However, noticing this block I must say you wouldn't consider the reasoning behind that- that maybe, just maybe, the discussion isn't going anywhere and I don't want to continue it any further than it's already gone. I've been harassed WAY too many times by people on this website over the years and in at least one case feared for my personal safety because of it, so you might excuse me if I've grown a little less considerate of heated discussions over the time.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While admitting a combative attitude in some editing over the years that I have been a Wiki member and that in 99.9% of those cases it was unnecessary, reason why the block was considered was made under false pretenses. User in question User:Martin_IIIa told various lies about a dispute he and I were having over a bit of information on a video game article's page (the full dispute can be found here). The dispute came about after I called into question an anonymous IP's assertion agreeing with said lying user due to his long history of disruptive editing which included at least one block that I was aware of. Admittedly, perhaps my response to the AN/I was not the best possible way to vent my frustrations with the out and out lying and personal attacks by the lying user in question, but my point still stands. It was completely unfair to extend an indefinite block to me, especially considering that a) I have not been in very many disputes, b) I have for the most part cooperated when directed to do so, and c) the AN/I was made under false pretenses. If I earn a block so be it but there was absolutely no need for it to be an indefinite block. Especially considering all the positive edits I've made have more than outweighed that.

Decline reason:

First, WP:NOTTHEM applies quite clearly. If you're going to continue to make aggressive comments against another user in even your unblock request, it's never going to go well. Your reply in WP:ANI - your chance to explain your actions and possibly avoid a block - was dismissive, and unhelpful to anyone who wished to investigate. Why not read WP:GAB again, and rethink your interactions with others: when faced with someone that you consider to be a WP:DICK, your best option (and the higher road) is to ignore and/or back away. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

• Comment from blocking admin - per a request left at my talkpage by a third party; You appear to be a good content contributor, but your standard response to any form of criticism is detrimental to a volunteer based project - even if half of those editors you accuse of being trolls are (and very likely it is less than 10%) then you make this place unwelcoming to the other half. If you were to undertake a few simple promises, always to wait half an hour between reading a comment and replying, allowing the other person to have the last word, trying to be more polite than the other person (which is a great contest if there is a genuine dispute but the other person is trying to "outnice" you), looking to see if there is any way that the other person might be right and correcting that and any other matter you find and then thanking the other for bringing it to your attention, not trying to find something that the other editor has done that is wrong (but if you do, quietly fixing it) and countering their complaint with one of your own... if you promise to try all that, then I would support an unblock - because indefinite only lasts for as long as there is a problem: no problem = no block. 'Tain't nobody else can do it, either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promise #1 I can make. Promise #2 as well. In the case of Promise #3, I like the idea, but what I do in cases where I double check to see if the person is right is- once I find out that the person has their point- is to let it go without further ado. And most times when a user has come at me with a pointing out of the mistake I have thanked them for it. So I would be able to hold to (or at least try to) all of those conditions you set and can promise you that.

What does bother me, though, is that my position that the ANI and block was made due to the lies of Martin_IIIa regarding our little dispute was not even considered and that he won't face any punishment for his damaging and (at least in one or two of his point) potentially slanderous statements. It's not an excuse but it is troubling. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Considering my original reasoning (which can be found on my user talk page with my original unblock request) was found to be in violation of WP:NOTTHEM, contesting again based on that. Upon seeing this linked I reviewed NOTTHEM and saw that my actions that were alleged would not have disrupted anything if I had taken said actions, which I obviously did not do to the level that I had been accused of doing in the first place. As far as assuming good faith, considering previous interactions that I had had with the user that had filed the report (including the discussion we had had on the discussion page for the article in question), considering that my position was not considered, my opinions summarily dismissed as "trolling" and "delusional", and the vote of two people (one who isn't even a registered user) being declared "a majority consensus" when Wiki guidelines require more to have consensus declared, it was difficult to assume good faith in the ANI post because of the past disagreement and the unwillingness of one side to assume good faith when I had bent over backwards to try to understand a point the side in question never made an effort to make clear. As I said in my response to the ANI, the report was a misconstruing of my words and actions in this case and did not accurately reflect what actually had taken place. Perhaps my response could've been a little more tactful but I wasn't expecting to be punished for something that, even if the depths of it hadn't been embellished by the filer, would not have been in any way disruptive to the Wiki. And I CERTAINLY wasn't expecting an indefinite block for it. Regardless of who is more at fault, though, this was a simple misunderstanding and it definitely did not warrant the punishment that was handed down.

Decline reason:

Per user's truculence below and comment about the block being for multiple issues. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Arghh, have you read WP:BLOCK? There's no such thing as a block for punishment (at least not from any of the admins involved here) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why was I blocked? I'm still trying to figure it out because I did nothing that might have warranted it. The user who filed the ANI report lied throughout it and because I called him on it, I got blocked. Sure seems like punishment to me. I want to be unblocked, and the sooner the better because this was unfair. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're blocked because you've worn thin the community's patience. This isn't a punishment. The block is not to enact retribution for wrongdoing. You have been the source of disruption, and the block stops that disruption. Period. There is no attempt or desire to exact punishment, it is merely a pragmatic solution to a problem. --Jayron32 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is so a punishment because a problem did not exist in this case. An investigation would have found that the user who filed the ANI wasn't telling the entire truth about what had happened here. Considering that, it seems to me like the block is being thrown at me due to disagreements I had with users in the past. Conduct an investigation into the comments made and you'll find that the user did not come anywhere close to what really went on. What do I have to do to get my editing privileges restored? It's not fair that my editing privileges were revoked based on a lie and the user in question will not face punishment. If you really wanted a pragmatic solution to the problem, an indefinite block was not that. It is completely unfair that a user was allowed to run my name through the mud and when I called him on it, I was the one that got in trouble. You can put it however you want- the facts are still these. I can't edit the site due to lies and you have been unwilling to consider that position due to other disputes I've had with users. THIS time I'm not in the wrong. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Two issues: The block was not for one incident, but for a history of problems. The block log doesn't even mention the specific incident you refer to, but to having a generally disruptive history. So that can't be used as a defense. Secondly, if you wish to have your case reviewed, a better way than to leave a wall of text about some incident which, according to your block log, was not the primary reason you were blocked, would be to contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee via email. They can be reached by the email listed at WP:BASC. --Jayron32 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, never. Look, Jayron, you know as well as I do that I wouldn't have been blocked had it not been for the lies the user told about me. That is unfair, and I find it a little unsettling that none of you are apparently realizing that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's very uncomplicated. Send an email to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Email address is listed at WP:BASC. Outline the nature of the lies told about you in that email you send. Ask them to review your block. If your request has merit, they will act upon it. --Jayron32 04:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? None of you considered it, so who's to say that they will? I outlined it in that so called "wall of text" and expected it to be considered... --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Have had several attempts to restore my posting privileges from this block go ignored, including an email sent to the Appeals Subcommittee, so trying again nearly two months later. While I have not agreed with the block and have shown in several instances where the user whose report initiated the block proceedings lied in his report, I have also admitted that I have not always been fully civil in disputes with users and have made several promises to change that have also gone ignored, even though in at least one case I was promised to have my privileges restored if I apologized (see above requests). My positive contributions have more than outweighed any negativity that I've brought to the Wiki and I believe that should be more than enough reason to reinstate my privileges.

Decline reason:

At this point, you may be eligible for WP:OFFER in a few more months - ensure that you do not WP:EVADE, WP:SOCK, or make other edits for a full 6 months before then. At that point, you will have to clearly show that your behaviour will not return. Clearly, asking us to unblock again after a negative or nil response from Appeals Subcommittee is WP:FORUMSHOP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Alright, guys, I give up. Please delete my account, as it's become blatantly obvious that you will never consider my position even though I've made it clear three times. I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BLOCKED. The user who got me blocked LIED to get me blocked. The entire thing was based on an assumption of bad faith BY HIM on edits I made and his anger that I called him on it. My block, despite what you people are telling me, was punitive. It's become clear that bad faith users and trolls are going to be given preference over actual, good users of the Wiki and I no longer wish to be part of it. I note that there never was an investigation into User:Martin_IIIa's conduct, especially the suspicion that I was unable to raise after my block- that he, in fact, was behind the anonymous IP that declared consensus on the Kasumi Ninja vote when four people did not vote definitively and the IP was not a moderator and therefore unable to declare consensus. So please delete my account and this talk page, the sooner the better. If this is the way Wikipedia is going to treat its members then I don't understand continuing to be a part. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we cannot delete your account. Please read meta:Right_to_Vanish if you would like information on "vanishing" from Wikipedia. You may also consider adding the {{retired}} template to this page. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I might as well, then, considering you people have been nothing but unfair and condescending toward me after all I've done for the Wiki. Go ahead and let Martin_IIIa and his anonymous IP continue to make disruptive edits. This is obviously what you want- otherwise you would've restored my editing privileges. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And please don't tell me you can't delete my account, because I know that every single website/forum/whatever that makes you register to contribute fully has the option. The facts are these- my block should have been rescinded the second I sent Martin_IIIa's lies to the Appeals Subcommittee- which, by the way, I shouldn't have had to do because you could've done all of that yourselves. The fact that it hasn't just shows me the levels that the administration of this website has sunk to to keep good editors out and trolls in. I've seen several of my friends and acquaintances get in trouble because they tried to keep certain people from making repeated disruptive edits on pages. Instead of getting a pat on the back for keeping the pages controlled they were constantly yelled at for not assuming good faith toward the users that weren't bothering to consider good faith in their own edits. I revisit the Kasumi Ninja point again and will continue to do so until you understand your wrongness in blocking me and not Martin_IIIa for his disruptive edits, his refusal to consider good faith in my edits, his refusal to come up with a better, more legitimate reason for removing the information from the page, his slandering me, and (at least what I believe) his violation of the terms of WP:SOCK in the declaration of consensus to have it removed (IIRC, anonymous IPs cannot vote on whether things should or shouldn't be accepted and the anonymous IP in question had a MUCH more blotted record than I ever did- credibility, perhaps, should've been considered for me and it obviously wasn't- and there needs to be four votes to declare consensus and there were only three, two if the IP in question was not being used by Martin_IIIa). I've shown you all this three times and all three of those times you haven't even considered it. Once, I could understand. Twice might be pushing it. Three times is just an offensive and abusive use of moderation power to keep me blocked for no legitimate reason. I don't expect a response acknowledging fault from any of you but it would be nice, considering how many times I've admitted fault. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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).

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Same reasons as three previous requests made above this one, plus refusal by moderators to consider my positions that user Martin_IIIa lied and slandered my name- which thanks to the block I can neither address nor respond to. Request review from mod other than BWilkins as I don't believe said user is being impartial.

Decline reason:

Here is the reasoning recorded in the block log: Disruptive editing: WP:BATTLE mentality, calling most who criticise "trolls" and confontational attitude generally. If you could address those issues in your next unblock request that would be helpful. If you do not it is likely the next reviewing admin will revoke your ability to edit this page and your only remaining avenue will be to again email arbcom. I would add that your above statement "IIRC, anonymous IPs cannot vote on whether things should or shouldn't be accepted " is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy on open editing, and you made up the thing about four votes out of thin air, there's no policy that says that and it's not a vote anyway. Frankly you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of how Wikipedia works despite your long tenure here. Wikipedia is not for everyone, some people simply can't get along in this environment. You may want to consider the possibility that you are such a person. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Easy there, Beeblebrox. First of all, I had addressed the so-called "battle mentality" in my first unblock request (which, as I note, is still here) and do not agree entirely with the assessment given. I have addressed my confrontational attitude and have admitted that perhaps I have gone overboard at times. I don't understand why I need to keep addressing points that I already have addressed in previous unblock requests. It's not like I've deleted the requests and violated the rule that says you can't- it is all here, just as it's been left.

As far as your calling my statement "directly contradictory to open editing", I think you're jumping the gun a little bit and assuming a little too much about why I said that. It was my understanding that, when there was a disputed piece of information on a page there needed to be a consensus reached among registered users as to whether or not the information should stand. But since I wasn't sure of that, I put IIRC into my statement just in case I was wrong. Obviously I was. I also don't appreciate your last statement, as I have been more than able to get along with most editors on Wikipedia. There have been rare instances that I haven't, and in every case but two I've conceded my wrongdoing and acknowledged that I hadn't done what I should have. The two instances where that hasn't happened was with User:Hdayejr, with whom I was actually fearing for my personal safety because of the lengths he has gone to to try and deal with certain people, and the most recent with User:Martin_IIIa when he made the report full of lies that I just did not feel was right. I think if you went back through every single edit I've made you'd find that the problems are far outweighed by all the good I've done, and quite frankly I find it insulting that you would say I "simply can't get along in this environment" because I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can. I would appreciate a response. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello ChrisP2K5! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 3 of the articles that you created are currently tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 867 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Tahesha Way - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Larry Toffler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. John Johnson (reporter) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Over a year has passed since I was blocked, and perhaps it is time that I was unblocked. A lot has changed over the last year and I believe that, since I haven't made any effort to cause trouble since, it warrants a restoration of my posting privileges.ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am willing to believe that, after more than a year, you may have changed. However, merely stating that "a lot has changed" without specifying what has changed is not enough. I strongly suggest that you respond to the question below if you wish to make another unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Given your history, I'd like more reason to believe you've changed. Can you explain why you believe you were blocked before, how you plan to change your behaviour, and what sort of editing you intend to engage in? m.o.p 04:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll answer.

1) I was blocked for what was said to be a continued "battle" mentality (which I though was a little extreme although I have had disputes with other users in the past). However, the block did not come until a user fabricated things about me and I was not willing to participate in the AN/I he filed against me because of that. The user used terminology in that post that I had been warned not to use (such as the term "troll") and held a condescending air about the whole thing claiming he would not be civil toward me in any way. He also said that I threatened another user (which I did not do) and refused to consider his position on something (which I had, but couldn't agree with because his position wasn't making any sense). Would the block have been inevitable regardless? I don't know. I just felt that THAT particular thing being the linchpin was totally unfair. You can look up on the top for the entire exchange- I kept it there for a reason.

2) Simple: don't engage in the same crap I did before.

3) What's basically the same editing I believed I was always engaging in: adding relevant information to the wiki, improving articles by adding said information, and overall contributing positively to the wiki.

Truthfully I was not expecting to have to answer any questions because I figured I'd served my time and that my reinstatement should've been automatic. However, I understand the reasons why I was asked and hope that my answers will grant me reinstatement. Like I said, a lot has changed and I want to get back into contributing to the wiki- which is really all I was here for to begin with. I wasn't here to cause trouble...trouble just seemed to find me and I reacted in not so good ways. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Addressed questions asked by MasterofPuppets, as per request of JamesBWatson. Also reiterating that much has changed, I have served my block for over a year, and believe that I am worthy of being reinstated. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Consider me a believer. Be free, and tread lightly! m.o.p 05:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good to me. I appreciate that you acknowledge the issue, and I think I can unblock on good faith. However, I need one final thing; if I am to unblock you, you're not starting with a clean slate. Any - and I mean any - personal attacks, harsh comments, or similar behaviour will result in a block. You'll be free to contribute, but it is absolutely vital that you understand this fact: no matter what other users do to antagonize or provoke you, regardless of who starts what, you can not retaliate. I promise you that, if such a situation arises, I'll do whatever is within my power to stop people who are harassing you (if this happens), but you have to promise in return not to engage them. Worst comes to worst, you can take a breather for a bit if conflicts arise.

If you could acknowledge these terms I've set out, then I'll finalize the unblock in the morning. Cheers, m.o.p 05:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Completely understood, acknowledged, and I'll be much more careful. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated. Don't make me regret this! I tease, I tease. If you need any help, I'm generally around my talk page and pretty much always near my email. Good luck, m.o.p 05:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The $128,000 Question, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links 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.

1996 Molson Indy Toronto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Marlboro, Target, Lola, MCI, Greg Moore, Firestone and Gonzalo Rodriguez

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dashes

Please take a some time to review the guidelines for use of hyphens vs. dashes listed in MOS:DASH. Your last edits to Michael Larsen included several hyphens instead of dashes. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines in MOS:DASH. You continue to use improper hyphens as you did in this edit. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Also, you've been asked to provide sources with your edits, but your changes to Press Your Luck in this edit contains no sourced information for your additions. Please provide the required backup to your edits. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Press Your Luck, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Last warning. Please do not remove maintenance templates requesting citations or replace proper dashes with hyphens as you did in this edit Sottolacqua (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Happy Harry's, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drugstore (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) 10:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Fort McMurray Team for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fort McMurray Team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort McMurray Team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Big Gold Belt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages No Way Out, Money in the Bank and Backlash (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) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Timothy J. Mara

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Timothy J. Mara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zzarch (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

NFL on Westwood One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to United Football League

Timothy J. Mara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ray Perkins

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Jones AT&T Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rice Stadium

Miami Hurricanes football (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rose Bowl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Super Bowl XLVI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Cruz (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) 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1986 World Series, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kevin Mitchell and Marty Barrett (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) 10:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

1999 NBA Finals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Larry Johnson (basketball)

Bad As I Wanna Be (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. When you recently edited Wayne-Route 23 (NJT station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Willowbrook Mall (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) 10:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Quiz Kids Challenge. Your edits appear to be unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited SuperBrawl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Junkyard Dog (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) 10:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. When you recently edited WABC-TV, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scrubs and Peter Marshall (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) 10:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Action News table

Hi. I'm having difficulty understanding your edit with regard to WXYZ-TV in the Action News table of stations that have used the name or format:

Used since 1972, but is more Action News in name only since most of WKYZ's broadcasts use Eyewitness News-style branding that ABC O&O's use (since it once was one), such as the circle 7 logo and "Cool Hand Luke"-based themes

Could you please explain what you mean by "more Action News in name only" and define "Eyewitness News-style branding"? This is unclear and puts too much information in one box of a table. If there's a difference between using the Action News name and the Action News format, this should be explained in more detail somewhere else. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited King of the Ring (2010), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hennigan (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) 10:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Money in the Bank ladder match, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Big Show (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) 09:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show). Your edits appear to be unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Squidward Tentacles. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ShopRite (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) 13:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

You suggested that this article needs to be split. When I tried to split the article, I found there was in practice very little apparant material on Cinemassacre or James Rolfe to make the split. Would you consider making the split? Op47 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, sure I will.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited 1991 Budweiser at The Glen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page STP (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) 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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.

Amen (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TVOne

Professional wrestling holds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mikhail Ivanov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

One of the pages you have created, Prime Time Begins at 7:30, is in the process of being deleted. You are invited to join a debate on whether this article can remain here. Thank you. Freshh (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Kugler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Thompson (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) 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

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.

Clifton, New Jersey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Republican Party

Union Hill Middle School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Emerson Middle School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

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.

Don Orsillo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Joe Simpson

Family Feud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peter Marshall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lash Huffman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vader (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) 10:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hakeem Olajuwon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spalding (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) 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SportsNation (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KSPN (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) 11:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Windham Rotunda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Nexus (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) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tide Ride

The article Tide Ride has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable WP:TRIVIA.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acme Fresh Market, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albertsons (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) 12:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

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.

The Tony Danza Show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Apprentice

Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Collingwood

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Williams F1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (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) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Arsenal F.C., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd sure like to know how posting an event from the Elementary episode titled "A Landmark Story" to the Arsenal F.C. qualifies as vandalism. I appreciate your concerns but do not tolerate being falsely accused of vandalizing pages. What I did was not vandalism. Could it be classified perhaps as unsourced/trivial info, perhaps. But to out and out accuse me of vandalizing a page is something I might be tempted to report to the AN/I board if it happens again. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It was the bashing his head out part and the fact that it was unreferenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It was this edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buster Douglas vs. Evander Holyfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cruiserweight (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) 13:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange (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) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Green (referee), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Page (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) 11:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. You did not include a source for the second half in your edit "In 1973 CBS moved TPIR to 3pm, pairing it with Match Game as part of what became the highest rated pairing in daytime." AldezD (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• html]"Golden Eagles to Face Louisville in Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl" 2010-12-05, retrieved 2010-12-05]</ref> After falling behind 14–0 and 21–7, Louisville came back to win their sixth
• and Atlanta's [[Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium|Fulton County Stadium]] (home of the then-Peach Bowl]]) were [[multi-purpose stadium|purposely built]] to house both baseball and football.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• meant that ''Millionaire'' would be in a highly competitive 4 pm hour with ''Judge Judy'' and ''[[The Oprah Winfrey Show|Oprah'', which aired on [[WABC-TV]], as its main competition. Although ''Dr.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

The task of creating a page for Timothy J. Mara had been on my to-do list for about two years. Because I work during the day and attend school at night, it's been on the back burner. I saw today that you had written one -- very nicely done. And thanks again -- he needed a page. He's kind of a forgotten owner to people born after 1985 or so. Kjscotte34 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Union (supermarket), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CVS, ShopRite and Hannaford (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) 09:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex Wars (game show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (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) 08:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Survivor Series (1994), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tatanka (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) 09:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lingo (U.S. game show). 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lehigh Valley Phantoms 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Philadelphia Phantoms]], are the top minor league affiliate for the NHL's [[Philadelphia Flyers]]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisP2K5. You have new messages at Musdan77's talk page.
Message added 01:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Musdan77 (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wheel

Season 5 did not begin with Big Month of Cash. That didn't start until October. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York Mets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WINS (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) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Joker's Wild. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [1] AldezD (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Joker's Wild. [2] AldezD (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello. I see that you made an undiscussed move (and some other significant edits) of the Bernie Robbins Stadium article. You may not have noticed that the naming of this article had already been discussed extensively, as recorded on the Talk page at Talk:Bernie Robbins Stadium. The decision resulting from those prior discussions has been to keep the article at Bernie Robbins Stadium. Your edits did not seem to add any significant new information to the article – e.g., no new sources indicating that the situation has substantially changed. I have therefore reverted your changes. Please do not repeat this action without submitting a formal move request to determine whether there is a consensus to make those changes. You can find the instructions for how to submit a move request at WP:RM. It would also be helpful if you could find some new reliable sources to cite in the article, if the situation has changed. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that you did it again. It is highly improper for you to conduct a WP:Move war without following the proper procedure for moving an article. You can find the instructions for how to submit a move request at WP:RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)