User talk:Stemoc/archive

Joel Monaghan

I have responded to your comment at Talk:Joel Monaghan, if you are interested. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the End of year tests

Sorry about that.. I was just editing the week 5 crowd attendance figures.. and when i saved it, for some reason only the WEEK 5 results were showing.

I have no idea why that happened, something about no reflisting? but thanks for putting it back up. Honestly very sorry about it. Do you know why that occurred? Im a noob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovana (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Its Rugby

Hi Stemoc. I was initially suspicious about the "itsrugby" links as the editor was a WP:SPA [1] adding the same link to a lot of articles. On looking closer at the Richie McCaw stats I have some serious concerns. Some are wrong and other information is missing. It totals 93 Super 14 caps (instead of 103) and 14 NPC games (instead of 34). This is probably because a lot of pre 2004 information is missing. This site may be excellent for European based players, but in my opinion is not reliable enough for Southern Hemisphere (at least New Zealand) based players. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Recentism in rugby

Hi. just wondering why you don't think that WP:RECENT doesn't apply to rugby articles? The argument you seem to have used at Brumbies (rugby) is that all rugby articles have these transfer sections, but the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid one. Also, I note that according to the Rugby union Wikiproject not a single rugby union club article has managed to make it to good article status, let alone a featured article, which suggests that these articles are not getting it right. Try look at a rugby league article that's made it to FA status (Sydney Roosters) or an association football one (Chelsea F.C.) and you'll note an absence of these sections. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware, our main goal is not to get an article to some class/status..that is secondary. Our main goal is to create as many rugby related articles as we can so that all rugby players that play this sport professionally in the top rugby leagues have their own articles and getting them to some status/class is not really a priority. I believe we have atleast 7 Featured Articles and 12 with GA status. I'm not sure why you think that WP:RECENT should apply here. These transfer lists works as a reference and every year it gets updated/changed when new players join the club and others leave....and as most of these players do not have an article, there is no way of knowing where these players transfered to or from. I really don't think rugby union should be compared to rugby league, though league is smaller, it has more followers here on wikipedia and thus their articles get updated daily and atleast 90% of all professional rugby league players have their own articles on wikipedia unlike rugby union where we have only a maximum of 12 editors at any given time and around 50% of the payers only have articles...--Stemoc (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:RECENT applies as this section gives undue weight to recent transfers. Many sports use season articles (for example 1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season or 2009 Dallas Cowboys season), and this is where transfers are documented. My point about good and featured articles is that these are articles that have been accepted as meeting the criteria set for Wikipedia articles, and hence do not contravene Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate that it's more difficult to cover a subject with fewer editors, but that doesn't mean that the rules don't apply. Anyway, 7 RU articles have made FA status, so acheivements are being made by interested editors. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nargis Fakhri

She is lying on her facebook page. Even I have her on facebook. That's not her personal facebook profile. She made a profile just for her fans to add her. She is not born in 1987. That would mean she would turn 24 this year...but guess what? She was 24 years old 7 years ago! She was on America's Next Top Model for both Cycle 2 and Cycle 3. The premiere date for Cycle 2 was January 13, 2004. For Cycle 3, it was September 22, 2004. Watch 5:45 of the video where she says she is 24 year old. This makes her 31 years old. She'll be 32 years old this October. Stop changing her birth year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_SCZOfaYwo

Check out all the comments over here: http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/nargis-fakhri/blast-past-nargis-fakhri-auditions-americas-next-top-model Everybody is making fun of her for lying about her age.

Speedy deletion nomination of PlanetRugby

A tag has been placed on PlanetRugby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

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 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. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from PlanetRugby, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

U idiot should have done a search for PLANET RUGBY on WIKIPEDIA before deleting it .....idiot indeed...--Stemoc (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stemoc. You have new messages at Barsoomian's talk page.
Message added 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AussieLegend (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Stemoc. You have new messages at Barsoomian's talk page.
Message added 07:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barsoomian Barsoomian (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding File:Top 14 Logo.png

I have removed File:Top 14 Logo.png from 2011–12 Top 14 season because it does not have a valid non-free media use rationale for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content for the applicable policy and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline if you want to address the issues. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (2013 film)

You recently took part in a deletion discussion for this film, but given new information that the film is now on hold[2][3], would suggest a redirect to Paradise Lost#Films is more appropriate as per WP:NFF, and as per suggested by multiple editors at the deletion discussion. Would appreciate input at Talk:Paradise Lost (2013 film)#Redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

yes.....--Stemoc (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011–12 United States network television schedule

Hello!

Remember about 6 months ago when we were talking about the other networks in the schedule. Well, I think that is a good idea and we should work on that together.

68.44.179.54 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lily Cole

Hi, it's your old Jessica Chastain-co-discussionist. I wonder if you could help me out on Lily Cole, a scenario I'm frankly baffled is still continuing. A bunch of second-hand good-for-nothing websites list Cole as born in May 1988 (i.e. the IMDB, fashionmodeldirectory, etc.). Cole's birth was clearly registered in February 1988 (ancestry.com; that means she was born that month or one of the few before, but not months after). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time. Link here. She was mentioned as just having turned 20 in early January 2008 (by an actual newspaper) and then Lily Cole herself, on her verified Twitter account, twitted her 24th birthday on December 27, 2011, and then replied in the affirmative to somebody wishing her a happy birthday (meaning she was born December 27, 1987). Obviously, Cole has no problem stating what her actual birthdate is. Yet, various "editors" have converged on Talk:Lily Cole and are totally ignoring common sense and logic. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A. K. Hangal

I have reverted the change. Please add sources. --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

GOOGLE IT YOURSELF. I removed false data and you added it back in os if you feel that the year 1914 is correct, google it and find out for yourself newbie.--Stemoc (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In your edit summary you were just blaming Indian media. You did not mention that the portion was unsourced! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that 1917 is correct year! Thanks! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it yesterday but someone changed it back. Its only the day and month of birth that is in question, some sources say 1st February, others say 15th august 1917...--Stemoc (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And finally apologies for quick reverting one the basis of edit summary without searching in world wide web myself. But, ACTUALLY I felt something might be wrong in this revert, that's why I notified you about the revert immediately! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hangal

In the talk page links have been given already . High time the year of birth is changed!! Date of birth remains 1st Feb only!! Wikipedia should not spread wrong information!! Really sad that a wrong information is spread through wikipedia globally!! Have you gone through the links I have already given and also go through the autobiography of Hangal!Onceshook1 (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Proof on him being 98 on date of his death - http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ak-hangal-represented-the-best-traditions-of-bollywood-lk-advani_1733028 , http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/AK-Hangal-gets-a-lonely-sendoff/articleshow/15809537 Chack out more information on AK Hangal from his autobiography available here in http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ju51hH5wyFQC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=ak+hangal+theater+1936&source=bl&ots=Js1ANslAWK&sig=ujXktHW0wEBKj7zMUjHjpuVlRuQ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ak%20hangal%20theater%201936&f=false Also watch the video where Hangal and Ila Arun themselves say in interview that after 2 years he would reach 100.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaOPHsaDYqc http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-pix-friends-son-bid-ak-hangal-final-goodbye/20120827.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVFW-vv4q8YOnceshook1 (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

His book does not mention his date of birth, if it did, it would have been credible enough; as i mentioned previously, Indian media is not a very good source, multiple indian media links his DoB in years 1914, 1915 and 1917 and thus none is credible. the 'word of mouth' by actress Ila Arun is NOT a VERIFIABLE source. Unless she has a copy of his Birth certificate or any other CREDIBLE source, Wikipedia will NOT accept it as PROOF...--Stemoc (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Erase single cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Erase single cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Dude

That made me laugh! I thought you were going to be someone moaning at me about references^^^ But sorry, you gotta get there first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSR-Worcester (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 mid-year rugby test series

User:Hippo43 has nominated 2013 mid-year rugby test series for deletion. As someone who has contributed to this article, I thought you may be interested in the discusssion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 mid-year rugby test series. Hamish59 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 tests article discussion

Your comments about me, which you started in the deletion discussion and have continued in the discussion of the article itself are not civil. Combined with your arrogant tone and your strange use of capitals they give the impression that you are an obnoxious moron, which I'm sure you're not. If you continue making these type of comments about me I will seek admin action against you. --hippo43 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC) --hippo43 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are NOT adhering to Wikipedia Polices and blatantly removing things and making your own judgements and nomming them without discussion and once you start following polices i would stop calling you names...kapish? the "strange use of capitals" are the FOCUS words, its for emphasis....--Stemoc (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's your decision of course, but if you carry on being a prick, I will seek action on it. I'm trying to be reasonable by letting you know. The policy on being civil does not make exceptions for people with whom you disagree. --hippo43 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the "prick" here, everything was working fine until you nominated the article without thinking it through....Now you have created a mess and its getting very hard to fix because of your insistence and randomly "vandalism" by removing sourced and verified information.....--Stemoc (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justice League: War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Tucker (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) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I know we disagree on many content matters, but cheers for creating 2013 Super Rugby Final – it made updating it once the match was over pretty straightforward. Cheers. Shudde talk 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate....unfortunately, I did not get to see the final so was unable to update it...--Stemoc (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah was a good game. The article was on the main page for a while, ended up getting a few views. -- Shudde ^talk 11:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, caught the replay a few days ago...article is pretty good, only thing missing is probably the / section...--Stemoc (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Planet Rugby

Hello Stemoc, A was recently pointed to the article above and was asked to clarify why the article does not meet Wikipedia's policies. At the moment, the article is really just lacking reliable sources. If you could add one or two then the article would qualify for inclusion under Wikipedia's notability guideline. A quick search of the topic to me only reveals only primary sources. As a note; The Facebook page (if official) can be used as a source but will not establish notability on it's own. If you have any questions or wish for me to re-review the article at a later date, feel free to leave me a note at my talk page. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I didn't add sources because it was on my userspace, I know that article qualifies, I created it once under the non-protected page PlanetRugby and was hoping to get it moved to Planet Rugby but it was deleted because of an old Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Rugby Chat Forum), maybe it didn't warrant inclusion in 2005, it surely does now, but everytime its created, it will get deleted based on that old AfD. That rugby site has 2 facets, the official news and the rugby forum (both actually run on different servers). Its not spam, its actually ONE of the biggest if not the biggest Rugby union news related website in the world and has been used as a news-source on many article on wikipedia...Yes the facebook page is Official, they also have twitter..I have never said that it shouldn't be created, what i was asking Dragonfly was why it keeps getting deleted..--Stemoc (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cropped Munster image

Thanks for cropping the image of Simon Zebo to show closer to his face but is there any chance you could maybe zoom it out a tiny bit so it shows more body than face? Tomh903 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually on second look it's fine but I was wondering would you be willing to crop more images of Munster players for me? Tomh903 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Depends, which pics?, they need to be of high quality (few MBs) to appear good enough to be used on articles...I prefer a well-cropped pic that focuses on the face than a long range one :) --Stemoc (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Could you do zoom in on this player's photo, Donnacha Ryan? He is the player who has won the line out.
• Thanks that looks brilliant. I might come back in the future looking for you to crop more images because I have a good source of images on Flikr that are in need of cropping for use on articles.Tomh903 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Ok I got another one. Could you do David Kilcoyne? He is the one carrying the ball.Tomh903 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Chadha/Berges image

I see you cropped the Chadha/Berges image in Gurinder Chadha to just Chadha. I think having a picture of her with her husband in the article is valuable. Disagree? --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

actually, I didn't crop that pic, i just added it to the article..the thing is that her husband is on the other side of the picture and not next to her...if they were next to each other, it would have made a nice headshot...You can change it back if you want--Stemoc (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Lee Thompson Young that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

and what comment would that be?, I'm very sure I didn't post anything on Lee Thompson Young's page....It would be better if the admisn here blocked the vandal instead of allowing them to get the hang of vandalism and then return with multiple socks..I have been trying to get the troll banned on both wikis..--Stemoc (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Fiji RLWC

Hi Stemoc, where did you find the Fijian squad? Nice job, could you add them to 2013 Rugby League World Cup squads. Mattlore (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

in its article? there are 3 spots open still possibly for Uate, Hayne and Sutton if they are unable to make the Kangaroos..--Stemoc (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Planet Rugby

Hi! Sorry, I am not particularly active on Wikipedia these recent years and did not see the message you left me several weeks ago until today. I have moved Planet Rugby out of your user space into the main article space and unprotected it. Cheers! --Stormie (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No probs, cheers, it was already denied creation for many years, what harm would a few weeks do :) ..thanks, i took this to you cause the last few admins i talked to regarding this didn't care much for rugby..--Stemoc (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Stemoc. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Shiva and May

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Stemoc, thanks for creating Shiva and May!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. /

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I created the article just today and would link them soon..its not "orphaned".--Stemoc (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

redirects

I do not think that deleting redirects to make room for a potential future article is "routine maintenance" There was support at the Proposals discussion for your idea of prohibiting them, but actually implementing it would take a much fuller discussion. Any time you need a particular one deleted because you have an article to move, just ask me or any admin. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

it wasn't a 'future' article DGG, i actually made the article after tagging it and was waiting for the redirect to be deleted so that i could move it there.. --Stemoc (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Great. I did the move. It helps to say that in the first pace--I didn't find it because of the change in title. (I made it under the full name; i you think the acronym needs a redirect, please just make it.) The easiest way to indicate it is using twinkle, there's one of the CSD reasons preset as "G6, Page move." which prompts for all the information, and then whichever admin sees it can do it as a single step. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i actually made the article after i tagged it. I did choose G6, but i chose housekeeping, i only read the front words of the options and I didn't see "Copy-and-paste page move" option, they should just call it "page move" lol.. the idea is to not have to do this in the future, the 'move over redirects' option is limited to admins and above here (as mentioned at the Village Pump) and i hope changes are made in terms of my proposal.....anyways, I'm an old member, just a bit rusty...--Stemoc (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Queensland Reds

Hi Stemoc - Yes, I decided to create a couple of articles following our bored discussion. Please see Chris Kuridrani and Samu Kerevi. Details are limited to published sources. Want to keep biographies for sportspeople simple and less than a page on screen where possible. :) Kiap (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i saw them both earlier, they are perfect..lots of sourced info..i generally limit source to 6 but this is very good...you should write more articles :) ...--Stemoc (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably could have reduced the number of references there - but, once they've been looked up and typed in, there is a reluctance to cull them back. ;) Kiap (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Lennon

Please stop replacing my well-composed, in-focus picture of Tom Lennon with a poor, blurry, over-exposed, and face-partially-obscured-by-microphone picture. If you have a BETTER picture, by all means. Otherwise, please leave it as is. For the record, Mr. Lennon reached out to me personally to say he liked my picture, and when it was removed, he asked me to put it back. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isshokenmei (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats a very poor picture of Lennon, you can BARELY make out he is in the picture, I will revert you again and if you do it again, I will report you. Your picture is POOR and its not recommended for the infobox. The microphone picture actually shows his face and is a much better picture to use in the infobox. DO NOT add your picture back in again...I gave you the option to use your picture within the article, not as his HEADshot but you chose otherwise.--Stemoc (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Madhurima Tuli

Hi Stemoc. I doubt our paths have crossed before. I just wanted to drop by and follow up on the AfD by saying that I endured 10 minutes carefully watched the entire Lethal Commission, but that good manners prohibit my further comment on the merits of the actors persons involved. However, I can report the faint rumble of people rotating is still heard. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Trivia crap" apology

Sorry for any offence caused by my rant on the 2013 end-of-year tests talk page - have left a reply there, but just wanted to add a quick line here to apologise. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

File:AuthorShoshannaEvers.jpg

We can't use non-free images of living people, even with permission (see WP:NFC#UUI point 1). I see you're in contact with the author on Twitter, if you ask her to tweet that she agrees to a compatible CC licence (eg CC BY-SA 3.0) that should be sufficient. January (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nick Offerman

Stop taking down the pictures I add for Nick. He does not want the blonde photo of him on this site and paid for the use of the photo I uploaded.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmasst (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your re-addition of that horrific blond pic of Offerman to his article. There are at least three editors (two on the talk page, and a third who made the edit to remove the photo) who agree that that photo poorly represents him, so there is probably a consensus that it shouldn't be there. Please do not re-add it until you get a consensus to re-add it pbp 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no requirement that there has to be a picture of Offerman. If the only picture of Offerman available is that blond one that is horribly unrepresentative of him, then we are much better served by no picture at all than that picture. Again, I remind you that you do not have consensus to re-add the picture, and three editors agree that it shouldn't be there. You are now in an edit war with two of them. pbp 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

consensus are for removal and not for additions, the 3rd made the edit after reading the talk page so thats just 2, which includes you..we DO NOT choose the pics, we use the best pic available and that is the BEST if not the only "good" picture available for Offerman..I have come across a dozen of pics which "poorly" represent the celeb but there is nothing we can do about it, read this and this(Nihiltres's reply)....Offerman's pic is probably one of the better pictures on wikipedia, just because he decided to go blonde for a few weeks doesn't mean we can't use that pic, that picture is of HIM and thus can and will be used on his article--if people started complaining they didn't like their pictures on wikipedia and thus should be removed, we would have to manually remove over 1000 pictures...and stop saying 3 editors, because excluding you, there is JUST ONE... the 3rd one edited the pic because he read the talk page and is in no way involved in the discussion.Stemoc (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anybody other than you who thinks that keeping that pic is a good idea. And why the heck would removing shitty pix of people be wrong? An article doesn't have to have pictures pbp 01:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There you go, you want a picture that is free and where he is not blonde, then you go it.. enjoy.. i have to beg people on picasaweb and flickr to release their pictures on a free licence and even then i get rejected, i have been working on getting him a picture for 2 years now and thats was the best one available..and again when a picture is AVAILABLE, it SHOULD be used on their article, this is not a Dictatorship, so one cannot just "remove" a pic cause he does not like how it looks. --Stemoc (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I do like the new image better than the old one. And, yes, if a majority of editors think a picture should be removed, it is removed, even if that means the article is left without pictures. This holds regardless of the rationale used to remove the picture. Just because it is in Commons doesn't mean it goes in the article. pbp 01:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

and again 2 is NOT a majority, just 2 "disgruntled" fans..--Stemoc (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a majority. If people really disagreed with that, they'd have commented on the talk page. The discussion was live for two and a half months; nobody spoke in opposition. Therefore, it can be counted as consensus. And, furthermore, it is 3 people, not 2. pbp 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody spoke in opposition cause nobody cared, it was/is a very good picture of him and used across wikimedia and my maths is not good but i can count all the fingers on one of my hand and all i see is 2, and as far as i know know, "2 people do not make a consensus", its not 3, the third person did not post on that talk page and even then its NOT a consensus...take it here for an ACTUAL consensus...--Stemoc (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nick Offerman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

There is clearly not a consensus to have that image there. You have edit-warred with two editors today, and one more revert will mean you violate 3RR. Revert me or Nmasst one more time and it's off to the 3RR noticeboard pbp 01:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Pictures

The photographer released those images after I asked him if we could use them. He's fortunately allowed hundreds of his images to be added in the past. I've usually uploaded the vast majority of the images he has allowed us to use but have been busy for the last few months and haven't had time. Hopefully I'll be able to continue to add his images going forward. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The film MORTAL REMAINS

...is by no means a hoax; Nawlinswiki clearly did not do her homework. Please un-delete the Christian Stavrakis article so it can be amended. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.15.102 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not make allegations of "vandalism" in a content dispute. The allegation of vandalism, in cases that are clearly defined not to be vandalism is a personal attack, and a strong personal attack, and is blockable. Do not make allegations of vandalism in a dispute about the inclusion of an image, or any other content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, re this, I actually prefer the other picture without the landing gear showing. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

True, on the day of the incident, I added that same pic but changed my mind after a preview because of the 'darkness' at the bottom of the plane and the fact when the image was opened fully, it wasn't of a good quality and was distorting the name of the airline, the other image shows the name as well as having a clear view of the tail number..and I think the landing gear shows the "full image" of what the plane looks like, such as how many tyres it has..lol...--Stemoc (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Ransom Riggs

Hello, Stemoc. I'm Ransom Riggs. Thank you for your occasional edits to my wikipedia page. I'd really prefer a different photo of me, though. The one you keep re-linking to -- I'm wearing a denim shirt, smiling into the camera, and there's some unflattering overhead lighting going on -- looks really bad, I think.

The reason people have lately been trying to change it is that I asked for help with this via my twitter feed. (See here: https://twitter.com/ransomriggs/status/442056513473892352)

I realize that whatever photo is used has to be public domain, which is part of the reason you've reverted to the old one. This photo I much prefer, and was owned by me until I released it into the public domain: https://twitter.com/ransomriggs/status/447402068173545472

I realize I only have so much control over this sort of thing, but here's hoping this works.

Thanks, Ransom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor527 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Image Misunderstanding

Dear Stemoc,

Recently, I changed the image for Emily Bett Rickards's page. When you undid this, your comment was "Revert to previous image with IMAGE..stupid trolls". I was not trying to be a troll, when I visited the page there was literally NO IMAGE for her. You can check in the history. I was trying to help because it can be so annoying when you look up an actor on Wikipedia to see what they look like and there is nothing. I was only trying to spare someone that frustration. I am an Arrow fan and was browsing my favorite characters. Sorry about any "inconvenience", I was trying to help, not troll.

From, IP Adress 108.70.0.62 (or Teddybearearth whenever I'm logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.0.62 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a reference to you but the editor before you, when i clicked "submit" i realised i made a grammatical error by saying "image" instead of "version", most of the time i end up reverting vandals who try to add an "UNFREE" image event though a free image is already there but then when the image is deleted in commons, a bot comes along and removes the deleted image link but no one restores it to the previous "free" image version and thus it may look like the page never had an image even though it did if searched on commons..you can see my contribution history, i end up reverting a lot of articles where images were removed by stupid trolls trying to add an unfree images or the commonsdelinker bot...I didn't only revert you, i reverted a lot of people back to a "good" version--Stemoc (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Dance Photo

You reverted an edit I made. Clearly on the page I linked to the photo is copyright to Showmasters Ltd as stated. The Flickr user has mistakingly placed it under creative commons, when attendees who buy photos with guests at showmasters events like London Film Con do not get any copyrights - see the show masters photo shoot library about page here http://showmasters.photoshelter.com/about/. How you can say showmasters took the photo from a Flickr page is baffling when they them self take the professional photoshoots at their own events and retain copyright. The photo should be replaced. Animalhumour (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The person who is in the picture OWNS the copyright of the image and he has released the picture on a free licence and thus it is allowed to be used on enwiki. That person paid for the image and thus OWNS FULL COPYRIGHT to the image and has willingly released the image on a free licence..--Stemoc (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite that in law? As understand it, copyright remains with the person who took the photo, regardless of whether or not they sell copies of it. Otherwise an image that was sold thousands of times would have its copyright split between everyone who bought it. This seems to me to be obviously not a free image. 2.25.122.35 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Showmasters are selling that photo for £4.99 a copy, I'd suggest that wouldn't be possible if they'd assigned the copyright to the person in it who isn't Charles Dance. 2.25.122.35 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've requested a deletion on commons [4] - probably best to wait for their decision than war about it over here. The image is used on a couple of Game of Thrones articles as well. 2.25.122.35 (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is copyright to Showmasters, please view the page from Showmasters own online store in which attendees purchase photoshoots prior to events: http://www.btowstore.com/epages/Store2_Shop1309.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/Store2.Shop1309/Categories/TermsAndConditions "Title and ownership, and all rights now and in the future, of and for the photo shoot images remain exclusively with Showmasters Ltd. Photo shoot images will be available to download for personal, non commercial use after the event for a set fee." The Charles Dance photo is a photoshoot image therefore 'all rights now and in the future' are with showmasters, not the user. Doesn't get much clearer than that. Animalhumour (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

yes images on the site is copyrighted to them but when someone buys something, they own the rights to that image...why would someone pay money for something which they can't acquire the rights for?, If a person buys an image from gettyimages for example and shares it freely, then that image is rightfully owned by that person, Getty owns the copyright of image still and people can still buy that image if they choose to do so..as i said, that images right has been released by the person who [PAID] for it and thus allowed to be used on wikimedia......--Stemoc (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Getty Images grant publication rights to a purchaser, but that doesn't give them the right to transfer those rights to other entities or to make the image freely available. The image remains Getty's. See: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx - they aren't selling the images, they're licensing them. If someone who bought an image licence from Getty had the right to transfer that licence (for free or for a fee) Getty's business model wouldn't work. To back this up, here's a quote from the BBC (who use Getty and other agencies a lot).

"Unfortunately we are unable to grant permission for the re-use of images on the BBC website, as the images we use come from a range of sources with which we have a variety of licensing and re-use agreements, and therefore we don't own the copyright for many of these." http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/reuse_images

In the case of Showmasters, they're selling the chance to have a photo taken, a copy of that photo and the right to download a digital version and use both of those for personal non-commercial use. There is nothing to suggest that they have granted any further rights nor that such rights are automatically granted merely by purchasing a copy of a photo that the purchaser didn't take. See also this link: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright 2.25.122.35 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathan Hughes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flanker (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) 08:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Richard Armitage Picture

Thanks for updating that. I know how hard it is to get a picture listed on the wiki commons (or at least it was always a trial for me), so I appreciate your hard work.

Sorry, forgot to sign KiplingKat (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I knew who you were..yeah some of the good pics are really hard to get...--Stemoc (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Luken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Last Resort (TV series) (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) 08:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Waratahs template

I'll be honest, I'm completely at a loss as to your reference to WP:CRYSTAL in the latest reversion of the Waratahs template. In the case of Taqele Naiyaravoro – who might very well play this weekend, I agree that "Yet to play" is marginally better terminology (even though "Did not play" is also completely factually correct). In the case of players that are listed in the same section (such as Michael Hodge and Mitchell Chapman, who are both out indefinitely) might very well not play at all this season, I do feel that "Yet to play" incorrectly implies that they will; they might not. So, if anything, "Yet to play" is more liklely to fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL.

Also, on the day the season ends, "Did not play" will still be completely factually correct, while "Yet to play" will then definitely be incorrect. It a) adds extra work and b) introduces an unnecessary potential for something being incorrect in future. Will you take responsibility for changing this at the end of the season to ensure its correctness, or should I just stop being "lazy" and fix issues at the end of the season that could've been avoided all along?

But, yes, you're right, it's the "dumbest thing" ever and I'm "lazy" for trying to make something easier to maintain and to future-proof it. And thank you for not stooping so low as to insult fellow Wikipedia editors during discussions. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

you know what WP:CRYSTAL is right?, that is what you are doing, You are implying that those listed on those sections "DID NOT" play this season even though the season is still far from over and they have a likelihood chance of playing...we are not clairvoyants..even Injured players can be listed under yet to play...yes I did imply laziness cause at the end of seasons, by all means change it to "Did not Play" but till that happens, we have to throw our crystal balls out the window...hey don't blame me, I was one of the few trying to "improve" the rugby related articles but was given a hard blow...I don't mind offending people cause honestly, after being here for nearly 8 years, I seriously have no respect or anyone on this wiki and I won't play nice cause i have no intentions of collecting brownie points..that said, its nice to see a lot of rugby articles on wikis, in previous years, all we will get is red links...--Stemoc (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use appropriate edit summaries

Please don't leave snarky edit summaries like this. It's not conducive to the collaborative environment that we expect Wikipedia to be. It's also rather silly. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me pointing out that you're not a reviewer here, or a filemover, autopatrolled or IP block exempt and that you're not a rollbacker or auto-patrolled at commons either. It's just silly to do that. Permissions are not badges of power or awards for glorious deeds that you can lord over others. They're just extra toolss that we've been given to help build Wikipedia and Commons for our readers. They can be given to anyone and easily taken away if you abuse them. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one "collecting" badges here..I'm aware of your licence reviewer request on commons and what you did is the reason why you failed the request. You fail to follow or adhere to policies. I have no need to collect badges, I dropped all of mine a long time ago...that said it would be wise to next time follow the proper procedure instead of blatantly removing information from articles..--Stemoc (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I've never requested licence reviewer permission on commons. When did this supposedly happen? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

damn must have mixed you up with another Aussie..my bad...you all look the same on the wiki..crikey... --Stemoc (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you check your facts before making allegations in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Batman vs. Superman

I'm going to give you time to do whatever you think you're going to do to show notability. Otherwise, I'm going to revert the page back per the guideline you pointed to: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Additionally, if you can show notability, the information will be moved to Untitled Man of Steel sequel, as no one has said the film's title is "Batman vs. Superman". No one knows what to call it, so sources merely resort to that. There is no reliable source confirming that as the actual title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You keep saying it automatically gets a page if it's in production. There is nothing at WP:NFF that says that, and my quote above is pulled directly from NFF and specifically says that you have to show that the production is notable. Here's a hint, simply stating that scenes have been filmed does not make something notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ofcourse you won't revert in now as it will violate WP:3RR, i wasn't born yesterday and this film has been filming for a while, since October 2013 actually and yes I agree, back then it did not qualify to have its own article but it does now, we have added multiple films in the apst which didn't even begin filming or have a working name, case in point Jurassic World, your reasoning here is a bit moot because its unofficially" known as "Batman vs Superman" which is regarded as a "working title" so claiming that it does not have a title is a poor reason to not include it. Please, I urge you to google the news regarding this, This title may not have qualified to have its own page say a month ago, but it surely does now, It begins filming in Detroit and as you have seen, one of the lead stars is already filming her role and one of the main lead, Henry Cavill is already in Detroit for the filming and has been spotted with the director on the sets and the other lead, Ben Affleck will be arriving this week. I'm following the policies here. The film qualified for inclusion a while ago and according to WP:NFF is allowed. If this was a low budget movie, then the best time to add it was during film or after post-production but its a major big budgeted movie and there are 100's of "reliable" sources on this already and thus it should be included..please stop saying that the "production isn't notable", its not some low budget slasher movie, its a big budget high end movie which enters Principal photography today (even though it has technically being filming scenes for the last 8 months)--Stemoc (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

First, you clearly don't read any of these guidelines or policies. I can revert the page if I choose, it wouldn't violate 3RR, because I haven't reverted 3 times (only 2 times). You have to revert 4 times in a 24-hour period to violate that rule.

Second, it not being notable enough for its own page is not connected to the title, that's just an additional issue with your current page creation. If anything, it should be under "Untitled Man of Steel sequel", not a working title. We don't create pages that way.

Again, I'll say that filming does not automatically qualify it for its own page. Please read NFF. You keep neglecting the statement that I pointed out. Simply filming does not mean it is notable. You haven't actually shown any notability in the filming over the movie. You have casting info, old statements about what the film would be about, and a recent article saying they spotted them filming in Michigan. That's about 3 paragraphs worth of actual information and none of it shows notability with this production. Having a source say something is filming does not make it notable. Please read WP:GNG, WP:NOTE, or try reading WP:NFF more clearly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the 3RR rule just fine and also, if you are worried about the name of the title, it can be moved to "Untitled Man of Steel sequel", I didn't do it for the obvious reasons but still it will EXIST as an article on its own, not some "sub-article" to Man of Steel as its now more recognised as a stand alone film and not a "title in development" and also I'm not in the habit of adding the same information multiple times to make an article look big, I added what's appropriate and what's needed.. I could repeat a few and amke that article 6 or more lines longer but it wouldn't add any value and also even if you reverted me today, it will be restored tomorrow (american time) as then it automatically qualifies for inclusion as per WP:NFF it has begun principal photography. Maybe you should pillage through this category and start listing the films there for deletion as you will find a lot which haven't even entered into filming...and also the title is generally knows as "Batman vs Superman" as its the most common name used by the media to describe the film, i could also use its other working title which is "Sage and Milo", would you rather have that?. You keep going in circles and as i mention in my previous post, the film is NOTABLE, its listing is NOTABLE and its casting information is NOTABLE. Yes I only added 3 paragraphs to the article (apart form the updates) but its an article which had already been made but redirected over and over again, mainly by you ...had i started from scratch, would you say the same thing?. Again, I repeat it NOW qualifies as a stand-alone article, please do not try to remove it as you do not OWN the article and future discussion cane be done in its talk page section.--Stemoc (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you seriously read WP:NFF? Nowhere in there does it say that a film is notable if it enters production. It says that until a film enters production, you shouldn't even be considering a stand-alone article. I provided you with a quote that says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. NFF specifically says that there must be something notable about the production, and again (specifically) says that casting information is NOT notable information. Are you selectively reading, or just being oppositional?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

and what exactly, please tell me, what exactly is "not-notable" about this article? you have me stumped there....and also the production is NOTABLE, for the 3rd or 4th time (i have lost count), this is a BIG BUDGETED MOVIE (in bold so it sticks out) which qualifies, why are you setting double standards here , please tell me??? Avengers: Age of Ultron has had its own page since JULY 2012 even though it actually went into " production (as you claim it) in MARCH 2014. I believe you have some personal vendetta against this film and nothing to do with its "production status". I haven't only added the casting information but UPDATED it along with information regarding the "FILMING" status. I have been contributing to IMDb for 4 years, I'm well aware of the production laws and guidelines and honestly, this film qualified for inclusion a while ago and it would have had its own article had you not kept butting in and reverting all "legitimate" edits to recreate it as a stand alone...since you seem to have some personal agenda regarding this article, its best if you kept away from it, for the better of the community mate...we can't have double standards here, again I urge you to go through that category and start tagging all those articles there whose filming haven't begun or are not even in pre-production...Let us concentrate on the bigger budgeted movies which is far notable than most of the title in that category...--Stemoc (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

First, this is not IMDB, this is Wikipedia. There are higher standards here. Also, being a "BIG BUDGET MOVIE" does NOT make something notable. Hollywood throws money all around. That means nothing. What defines "notability"? Really? Have you read WP:NOTE or WP:GNG? It comes down to significant coverage from third-party reliable sources, beyond trivial mentioning. Trivial mentions would be casting information and acknowledgment of filming itself. Significant coverage would be details regarding the filming, writing, visual effects, etc. There is a big difference between what is on the Avengers 2 page and what is on the Man of Steel 2 page with regard to basic coverage. Also, just because other pages exist(ed) does not mean that they should have, or that it was correct. I don't monitor all pages and it isn't my job to do so. I do monitor this page. So again, you have some time to show this production has become notable beyond simple mentions, otherwise it'll get reverted UNTIL the production becomes notable (and NO, simply existing is not notable...read WP:NOTE and WP:GNG, for the love of God).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"being a "BIG BUDGET MOVIE" does NOT make something notable." < lol , you really got me there and I'm aware of what IMDb is NOT but when it comes to information regarding movies, its the first place ANYONE goes as its more reliable than wikipedia and will continue to be as we can see why when we have people like you "dictating" what should and should not be included. Films have a different set of polices on wikipedia, we do not follow the same guidelines to create an article on a 'film' as we would do for an 'actor'. No one could add anything on that article without you jumping on it and reverting so how do you expect people to add the simplest of information such as the "set and costume design" or "production updates" to give it a bit more notability, infact, YOU are the reason why the article lacks all the information needed to make it "MORE NOTABLE" anyone can see it in the article's history page..wow...just wow..thanks, you just made me lose my 'cool', please stop making silly comments, all you have proven thus far is that you will go to lengths to make sure that article does not exist and I'm not going to listen to a dictator who wants people do as he says, i was bold to "start" that article and I'm standing by my guns, If you revert it, I'll make sure you get banned cause honestly, I'm not a fan of people who think they OWN certain articles on wikipedia. The article qualified for inclusion a LONG LONG LONG time ago and it was because of your petty insistence and reversion that it was never actually made into one.--Stemoc (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again you prove you have no concept of what notability is, what WP:BOLD actually says (since you keep citing it, but don't realize that you violated it once you were reverted the first time), or what it actually takes to get "banned" (seeing as I've done nothing to get banned). If I'm keeping you from adding information, then by all means add it. So far, you've shown nothing other than what's already at Man of Steel, and a line that the film is shooting some scenes in Michigan. Congratulations on that wealth of knowledge you've added to the article. As for IMDb being more "reliable" and the "first place people go", I'll let you hang on to that delusion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I was reverted by a maniacal editor who thinks he works for DC Comics, i have seen your edit history, all you do is revert everyone that edits any DC Comic related articles..All i did was recap everything that should have been there from the start and all you keep doing is removing it due to your own selfish reasoning which still makes no sense..Had i been reverted by an editor that actually made sense, I would have taken my cue but all you have proven is that you are too invested in this and refuse to see it happen..Cast and crews are just the beginning of a film, wait a few weeks, more will get added as filming goes full swing. You refuse to acknowledge the notability of this article pulling out random bits of stuff which really makes no sense, I chose to be bold because i knew i was doing what is right, maybe I should have ignored al rules instead as what you keep saying over and over again is what's hampering the creation of this article which believe me, for the 3rd time is LONG OVERDUE. Something this important should not get cramped as a tiny sub-section of another article, there is so much that can be added, would have been added had you not kept REMOVING them...you are a boderline vandal, you do realise that right? Just because something does not suit your ideals does not make it wrong, you have to change your thinking..again, since you are so invested in this article, its best if you stepped back from it incase you end up being banned for being disruptive..I will soon move all of these to the talk page of the film, I think this discussion is better suited for the talk page of the article.. --Stemoc (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have a loose understanding of any of these policies. Let's be clear. You DID ignore the rules. First, WP:NFF is clear that casting information and simply filming is NOT a reason to create an article. It says so, clearly, on the page. Second, you were bold and created the page. Per WP:BOLD, once you make an edit, if it is reverted then you go into a discussion, you don't just keep reverting back because you want your way. If anyone should take a step back, it's you. You create a page simply because Batman and Superman themselves are so notable. You did not look at the facts of the case at all. I'm going purely objective, and not allowing my fondness of the characters influence anything. The fact is, the only information we have on the film is casting information and knowledge that they started filming. If you remove the old quotes about what Snyder wants for the film, then you have a paragraph worth of actual production information. That does NOT meet the criteria for WP:NFF (please, really read it). Obviously, this conversation is going nowhere because you have no real understanding of those guidelines and policies. So, that's where I'll leave it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lol our discussion here is bigger than the article itself and I didn't IAR, I followed the rules as the film has begun filming proper though just like most big budgeted movies, they usually have a start off production dates even if they have already been filming 'minor scenes'..Well major filming kicks off this week so its best if it already had a an article ready which can be easily updated and more information added as it happens rather than wait a few more months until its closer to post-production..as i said, if this was a low-budgeted movie, I wouldn't even bother creating the article until it was in post-production but this is an important film which just like Age of Ultron mentioned above deserved to have an article a long time ago instead of just being a blurb on another article....I added the information required for it to be its own article and thats what's important..no need to bicker about this anymore, the article is there, lets just continue with the updating process...--Stemoc (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batman vs. Superman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sucker Punch (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) 08:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sean Harris removal of pic

Actually, that was a fair use photo of the actor that you removed. As I read copyright, fair use comes into play for promotional materials to inform and draw audience. It was from Showtime's press kit promo set (and indicated as such). The purpose was for commercial reuse, to promote the series. I do not profit. Showtime did if it got people to watch the series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicity_photos

And this pic is on Wiki -- also a promotional photo, and has been in use for some time. Why is this photo different than the one you removed from Sean Harris' page, and continues to be used?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5a/Southcliffe_TV_drama.jpg/220px-Southcliffe_TV_drama.jpg

I did not upload the Southcliffe photo to wikimedia, but I expect if it's there to promote Southcliffe, then I will be able to use that photo (since it is of Sean Harris) instead of the one you removed since there seems to be no problem with that promo photo. Because in that case, I prefer the Southcliffe photo to the one you removed -- and problem solved. Yes?

Legaleze (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Follow up -- never mind. I found the explanation from the person who uploaded the photo. Thank you, anyway. I won't add the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legaleze (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

James Morrison Bio Info

Hello - thank you for getting in touch. I am unsure why my edits are unconstructive - all I did was change the biography details to reflect the latest work, and remove an incorrect image. I do not want this image as the profile image on Wikipedia. It is not an official image. Jamespmorrison (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lorenzo Lamas 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:

• [[File:Lorenzo Lamas.jpg|220px|right|thumb|Lamas at the [[61st Academy Awards]], 1989

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Headshot Photo

Hi Stemoc, I noticed that you changed Jeremy Renner's headshot photo a while ago, but wrote that your reason for doing so was was because it wasn't good enough. Can I ask what in particular made the new one better/why the last one was insufficient? Thanks, RichWatt (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RichWatt, hey, yes the previous image as you can see is a 'side shot', see the ONE adn ONLY reason we add images to the infobox is for identification purposes ONLY which means the image that appears in their infobox should ALWAYS focus on their face, preferably from the front. Other images can be used within the article provided the article is big enough to allow for multiple images. I had it changed because thats a side view of his face and body, We prefer "headshots" in the infobox as its the only reason wikipedia allows images on the wiki in the first place. The main priority is the article itself..I hope this reason is good enough for you..--Stemoc (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your explanation RichWatt (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edited Selfie picture

Why do you feel this distinctive image should be in the popularity section, and not head the article? Nim205 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

actually, it shouldn't be there in the fist place, there are Better images that can be used so if you try to push your OWN IMAGE to the top of the article, it will be removed completely. WIKIPEDIA is NOT for WP:SELFPROMOTION--Stemoc (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

James Morrison Image

Greetings - would you please give clarification on why you reverted my image change (as there was none given). I spent a long time finding one and contacting the photographer to ensure it had the correct CC license and I had their permission. Why has it been reverted? Jamespmorrison (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Jamespmorrison, are you intentionally trying to degrade wikipedia? yes that image was fine, it qualifies our cc2.0 criteria but its one of the worst images possible, first its badly cropped, secondly its of very very inferior quality and thirdly, if you actually worked for Mr Morrison, he would FIRE you for using such a poor quality image for his wikipedia profile. The current image on his profile is of a very high quality, so next time you try to change the image with something similar, I will report you...find one with a higher quality and better shot or don't bother changing it again...--Stemoc (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Personal attacks are not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia. That includes in edit summaries,[5] which you have been warned about previously AussieLegend (✉) 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

so i was right, you just got "personal", just because you did not get your way in commonswiki, you think trying to undermine me here will help your what, ego? Please refrain from posting on my talk page, its for discussion relating to more important issues, not your petty insults...--Stemoc (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you were not right. Your edit summary calling another editor an idiot is inappropriate. You've been warned by an admin about similar actions on commons. Please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Transfers on club articles

As someone who has added and / or removed information to a "transfers" section of a Rugby Union article, can I draw your attention to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Transfers on club articles. Hamish59 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Browning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Let Me In (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) 08:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Frank Bainimarama

Just so you know. Changing the context of an article, like promoting someone in an article without providing a reference will always be reverted. As yet you have not provided a reference reference to back your claim, though someone else who also does not come from Fiji has. Respect is not a privilege, it's earned. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 15:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I was reverting a Russavia sock. Per policy you need to take personal responsibility for the edit if you restore it as banned users cannot edit. I have undone your revert so that you can decide whether you want to do that. If you do, just undo me again but can you comment on your accepting the edit in your summary? Ta, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• yes - happy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, done that, regardless of whether i was done by a blocked editor, its a good edit and provides a lot more information that the previous version...wish we could do a similar thing for all diplomats..p.s i didn't see your comments here when i made the "undo" ..--

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I am proud to give you this award for your tireless reversion of vandalism on BLP's. Keep up the good work! IPadPerson (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 Liga I

Hello, may I ask why you have removed the UEFA competitions template in 2014–15 Liga I? gogo3o 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

the edits before yours were all vandalism so i restored to the best/stable revision...you can add it back in again if you wish..--Stemoc (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

IMO you should have done that, cause my edit was not a vandalism. anyway, thx for answering. gogo3o 14:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

lol

I'm not her, you made me laugh. :D She has better things to do than convincing you that your image is not the best just because it's you who has taken it. And me actually too, I'm tilting at windmills here when trying to convince the established user who thinks that he has always the truth. Do whatever you want haha. You should check a country of my IP first before making such statements (no open proxy here). ;-) --109.81.209.121 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Lupita Nyong'o

Just wondering who considers it "demeaning" to darken a "colored persons" photo? The flash is too much that it loses detail, the darker image is of her actual coloring. Why is that a problem? You'd wouldn't lighten up a white person because darkening it is "demeaning" would you? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I figured you would post here soon enough, yes she is dark coloured but the picture was taken outside, in broad daylight so colouring her to make her darker even though she isn't really that dark in sunlight is a bit similar to the early 1900s 'blackface'..compare that image to the one which was taken inside then you would know why that image is not really a good indication of her looks..--Stemoc (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well other than the fact that you keep changing all my images! lol I'm kidding, I don't care, whatever image works best, I was just wondering about the "demeaning" part of the image revert. I haven't reverted any image (at least I don't think I have) because I trust your judgement :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes "ALL YOUR IMAGES ARE BELONG TO ME", hehe, nah we need to get the best images for articles, i changed a few with those with better angles and higher quality, advice, use 'lossless' method, it retains the image's higher quality so it can be used by others elsewhere and yeah regarding Lupita, she is dark skinned but even people with dark skin appear lighter in the sun...coming from someone who is of a 'dark' skinned, i found it a bit too rude to 'darken' someone who would not look that dark in the sun..is it only camera flash or the does the sunlight play a part? ...btw, not a fan of the new pic for Henry Cavill, I added a new image myself but when i tried to use it on the article, i realized the previous one (2013) was actually better...i didn't crop the one u added cause it was slightly hazy..we don't need to replace all images, only those which are quite old (3+ years) or of poor quality..--Stemoc (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I myself didn't darken the image, I just cropped it, that's just how the image was when I found it. I wasn't trying to be rude or offensive by saying it was "darkened", that's just what I say to any image with the flash lightened. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I added your Cavill image because I like the angel better but what about his mouth? It looks like it's in mid sentence while the other one was smirking. Thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you darkened the image, the person who originally cropped and added it did and who i reverted last year and regarding Cavill, as i said, I tried the image i cropped as well, it was good but they both failed in comparison to the previous image..regarding the smirk, there is another picture of them bursting into laughter so i assume Singer was saying something funny about them...--Stemoc (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"ruthlessly replacing lady lotus's pic *evil laugh*" best. edit summary. ever. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Ram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flanker. 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) 09:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this edit?

[6] Philip Trueman (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fijian general election, 2014 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:

• {| class= "wikitable"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dr. Brij Lal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bua. 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) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for that. Excellent work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Chapman picture?

Per this edit - why do you think the Elizabeth Chapman who runs the London School of Economics library (http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/about/people/home.aspx) is the same one who wrote the books about Marmaduke? --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

apparently she isn't..the age matched and a book author working in a library isn't far fetched...you can remove the image if you want..I'll rename it later..--Stemoc 01:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Dear Stemoc, thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent edits to the main image used on the Punjabi language article. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Signature

Your signature violates signature policy because it has markup that enlarges the sig, therefore it disrupts the way the surrounding text displays. Here's what your signature looks like without the markup:

Stemoc

<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Stemoc|Ste]][[User talk:Stemoc|moc]]</span>

Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please? I wanted to make sure you didn't forget. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have had this sig since before for a long time and it violates no such policy, infact your signature is bigger than mine, please change it.--Stemoc 03:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yours is obviously bigger:

Stemoc AmaryllisGardener ^talk

If you're making reference to the sup tag, WP:SIGAPP says be sparing with it. It says: "Avoid markup such as <big> and <span style="font-size: 200%;">(or more) tags (which enlarge text); this is likely to disrupt the way that surrounding text displays.", the "font-size:medium" part of your sig violates that part. You're not the first user I've messaged about their sig. I know the signature policy. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The usual problem with such markup is that it changes the line height; I see no such effect here--it is the same size as normal sans-serif text, not 'obviously bigger'--and without enlarging the text I believe it is smaller than recommended by policy. Someone without Monotype Corsiva installed may see things differently, but to me it seems to be a lose-lose situation. AmaryllisGardener's signature has no problems that I can see. -– Cathfolant (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cathfolant: Well then, my computer must be different than yours. (Win 7, Chrome 38) I haven't even heard of "Monotype Corsiva". Just don't treat me like an idiot. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I treated you like an idiot. That was not my intention. Monotype Corsiva is the font used in his signature; I guess you don't have it installed. These cursive fonts often look much smaller than sans-serif which makes it more convenient to use enlarging markup, and then someone who doesn't have the font installed sees extra large text. -– Cathfolant (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cathfolant: It's okay, I didn't think you intended that either. Here's a screenshot of this discussion: File:Big signature.png so you can see what I'm seeing. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As i said Amaryllis, my sig is fine, there is probably something wrong with your settings (screenshot)..--Stemoc 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Cathfolant, do you know anywhere I could get the font from? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: This looks like a plausible place to download it. -– Cathfolant (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riccardo Silva

The edits by Youtube dot com c-r72Nr8A44 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riccardo Silva were actually correct, the edit summaries were wrong. Your reverts on them were improper. Youtube dot com c-r72Nr8A44 initial revert was to revert the AFD back to the version as it was closed in 2012. Skyfall added comments to the closed discussion and should not have. GB fan 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

sorry about that, did it with Huggle after not using it for 5 years, may have missed that, I thought skyfall's comments made sense so must have been the good revert..--Stemoc 18:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stemoc im new here you mark my Artist biography as spam is there anyway you can unmarked it please?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urban Music (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Coleman

Did you just call her a hoe with that edit summary? /snicker (agree on the image reversion)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

oops, hehe, yeah the "E" key is right next to the "W" key..good thing i didn't press the "R" key instead :P --Stemoc 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

David Gandy headshots

Hello, regarding your replacement of the infobox image on David Gandy. If I understand your rationale, you object to a cropped image being used? Both photos were taken by professional street photographers during the London Collections:Men events in 2013. The previous photo is full-color, with the correct license and of a better quality than the black/white you posted. Therefore your insistence on using a lesser-quality image--just because it was taken a few feet closer--does not make sense. Please explain. Thanks, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally higher quality image which focuses on the person's "face" is the best image to use, generally those where the person is actually looking towards the camera if not directly at it...the one you chose is best suited within the body of the article...both are obviously images taken by professional photographers but one is more suited for the infobox, If we cropped the image you chose, its quality will become poor, even though the one i chose is black and white, considering that the person in question is a model, its actually very "apt"...--Stemoc 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ganges

Do you have a citation to support that children and virgins, as opposed to men and the married are sent to the Ganges? If so, post it at the nom and I will change my vote to oppose. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahendra Reddy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fijian. 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) 08:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Law date of birth

Hello Stemoc. I wanted to leave you a message regarding the Katrina Law article. There appears to be some contention regarding her date of birth, and unfortunately we cannot accept IMDB, Twitter, or Facebook links as a source for this detail. I have redacted the date of birth for the time being, until we can locate a proper citation as published by a reliable third party. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生:, Her birth date is correct and is verified by her on twitter herself, the only thing wrong is her birth year, her IMDB is wrong, she is born in 1977, not 1985..I did not add the 1985 birth year, someone else did but her birth month of September 30th is correct...so you actually removed a verified source, please add it back in or trolls will now keep adding the fake birth month and year.--Stemoc 22:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stemoc thank you for following up with me. IMDb, Twitter, and Facebook are not acceptable as sources for WP:BLP articles. Is there a reliable source available which confirms her date of birth? If not, policy dictates that we leave this blank until such a source can be provided. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DanaSnyder.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DanaSnyder.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start an edit war

See WP:BANREVERT

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."

Since Russavia is banned, and since he is trolling, you are trolling if you take complete responsibility for his edits.

He will soon be reported to WP:3RR and I assume be blocked.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of your involvement to get Russavia banned in the first place so pardon me if I ignore your comments, last i checked, Jimbo's talk page was the "UNITED NATIONS" of wikipedia where even banned editors were allowed to speak..who are you to say differently and i was following the rules, I ALLOWED banned editors comments because the comment was only noting his intentions, NOT attacking anyone on the page, so its not I who violated any rules but those who reverted me..--Stemoc 03:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tracy-Ann Obermann image

I'm looking at that "OTRS" image of Tracey on Commons and I'm not sure that it has been through the OTRS queue... Tabercil (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

it was passed by an OTRS agent (MDann52) so i figured it must have..also, that user uploaded atleast 3 copyvios (straight from tracy's website) and claimed to own the rights for them, i got them all deleted so he added another image to his flickr account so that he can add the image again to the article..so from copyvios' to flickrwashing to fake OTRS permission and then some OTRS agent who didn't bother to look at the uploader's history allows it...--Stemoc 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have an account on Commons, you can chime in on that here as background. Tabercil (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Natabua High School

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Natabua High School, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://exnats.webs.com/history.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Stemoc, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Natabua High School has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

technically, this is FIJI, its impossible to find info online (internet only existed here after 2005) and you have to go with what you have..since you pretty much "culled" the article to a crappy 5 line stub, its not worth keeping...if i had to make this article with practically nothing in it, i would have created this along time ago...--Stemoc 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Setareki Tawake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kadavu. 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) 09:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore edits

What exactly are you up to here? [7][8][9][10][11] Looks suspiciously like WP:HOUNDING. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

He is violating our policy by replacing the image with his crop so he is doing a WP:SELFPROMOTION, its not HOUNDING, image name should be descriptive of the location or the people in it, he is intentionally uploading images just because he was to self promote himself, we do not allow this ..he has been doing this for a while, even tried to get images on commons renamed to his name in the image title..--Stemoc 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against the editor, bring it up at WP:AN/I. Do not follow them around and persistently revert all of their edits. The edits you reverted are not vandalism, and even if you think they violate a policy, you will need to achieve some consensus on this question before you start reverting the user's edits on sight. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

See the last image he changed on Neil Druckmann's article, this is the original image, this is his addition, this IMO is vandalism to "self promote" himself as a photographer, I won't go to AN/I, this should be solved by admins by blocking him..I'll revert any other he has changed..--Stemoc 02:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please produce a link to a Wikipedia policy that says the contributor of a photograph that is their own work cannot use a file name for that photograph that includes the photographer's name. Unless you can do so, stop interfering with the photographer's edits immediately. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I see no effort on your part to communicate with the editor you are persistently reverting on their Talk page, nor with any admin about blocking them because of your belief that they are violating a policy. So, since no communication is taking place, I can only assume what you are really attempting to do is provoke them into edit warring with you, and provocation is not an appropriate strategy if you are trying to improve the project. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

He already gets an attribution in the image itself and well as having his own commons category, but to try to change the image title is not allowed, this policy is on commons, not wikipedia as images are stored there , the policy in question is commons:Commons:File_naming#Namingthis one and quote, "Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray", not the NAME of the author, we do not allow that unless the author is a known professional photographer, not a flickr-hack .. and even then for limited images ..I'm not provoking the editor, he is intentionally 'vandalizing' via POV pushing, he has been doing this for years and has been ignored for reasons unknown, Honestly the only option would be to get his flickr feed blacklisted on commons and request a ban there..cause enwiki rarely does anything to people like him..Abusing wikipedia to push your own agenda is one of the biggest violations IMO..I urge you to restore my reversion or i will revert them again, you refuse to see it as a violation, but it is a violation via commons wikimedia--Stemoc 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The file names continue to be descriptive of their subjects even with the photographer's name appended. I see no policy at the link you provided which the photographer has clearly violated. There is nothing written at that link that prohibits or even discourages the inclusion of the photographer's name, contrary to your assertion above. If you think some action needs to be taken, you need to bring it up at WP:AN/I or seek dispute resolution, but you do not need to follow the user around and revert all their edits because you do not like what they are doing. If you continue, I will bring your actions up at WP:AN/I. Understood? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Descriptive how?, all it tells us who the person is and whose pic it is..not the location where the image was taken, and its NOT descriptive the image name has to be DESCRIPTIVE, not the name of the photographer, when you intentionally removed other better cropped images and try to replace them with your own "poor" version of them, its vandalism, the user has a COI, he is pushing his own name and we DO NOT allow that on any Wikimedia sites, even enwiki, he may very well be a paid editor if you see his flickr stream working for the republican party and using wikipedia, sorry abusing Wikipedia to promote oneself is a violation. A commons admin did ask him this in March, he never replied cause he never does reply..so talking to him is futile....take it to AN/I, afterall thats where everything that can't be solved an will never be solved ends up..--Stemoc 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, if you think that a policy is being violated, you should be actively seeking consensus, administrator action or both. If you fail to do either one, and simply revert the editor's contributions on sight without any effort to communicate with them or to correct their behavior, you are engaging in harassment and are likely to eventually find yourself the subject of administrative action. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, i no longer involve myself with the wikipolitics of this site, I'm not going to keep running to mommy (AN/I) like some two year old, anyone with half a brain can see that the user is violating atleast one of our policies and is getting away with it...I have a long history with wikipedia and cross-wiki vandalism and spamming and even i know this is a combination of both ..as i said, per our policies (commons), he has been given attribution which is the requirement of his "cc-by-sa" licence, there is no requirement for the user to push his own agenda to fuel his personal interests cause that would be violation of wikipedia's highest rule, the Terms of Use in relation to this ...still don't see it as a violation?--Stemoc 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pio Tikoduadua, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St John’s College, Fijian and Public Service Commission. 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) 11:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan

Perhaps you consider a distorted frowning face to be a good representation of a person, others don't. If you wish to revert, do give a better reason than "get glasses please". Also note that condescension is consider an act of incivility per WP:CIVIL. Hzh (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

frowning?, i have the same number of lines on my forehead when i smile..yes, get glasses because you honestly don't know the difference between a good image and a poor one...the one you chose is a VERY POOR IMAGE..get consensus next time you change the image or else it will be reverted just as fast...--Stemoc 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My reason has been given per Wikipedia guideline, I would suggest trying to insult my visual judgement is not productive. Hzh (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest not insulting mine and quote "(no point using an image that doesn't look like him)" when the image clearly looks like him..and also, your answer is not really a good one cause anyone can SEE that that image is the BEST representation of the actor available..--Stemoc 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My reason is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, so far yours apparently not. If you want to set yourself up as "anyone", it's up to you, I have no interest in that. You can easily Google images of Jamie Dornan, and the Wikipedia one is the oddest, and least like him. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well by that reasoning, the one you chose will be the ODDEST of them all..I know the guidelines, its apparently you who does NOT know the meaning of "natural and appropriate visual representation", please, I urge you to learn about it because its quite silly for me to discuss an image related issue with someone who isn't capable of understanding "visual representation" , we are WIKIPEDIA, not GETTY or WIREIMAGE....as you can see above, I go through this type of situations a LOT more than you ever will...this is Dornan on IMDb, this is your image of Dornan and this is mine, now tell me, which one looks the "LEAST" like Dornan?..--Stemoc 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yours. (See how easy it is to make an assertion? It is not a productive discussion if all you can do is to assert the superiority of your judgement. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your judgement is wrong.) Hzh (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that you have violated the WP:3RR rule. Any further attempt to revert may result in a block. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

reverting VANDALISM is not a 3RR violation, and please stop talking on my page, take it to the other talk page..i don't like unnecessary talk here.. ..--Stemoc 17:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what constitute vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. Hzh (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I will try it one more time - the discussion is open, please try to discuss it first before replacing a good image with an inferior one. I have already explained why it is a better imageb (it is full face, no distortion), you have not, and you are the one who replaced that initial good image you are now reverting, and without justification. There is a vote open in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can have a consensus. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No you LISTEN, you are the ONLY PERSON in the WHOLE of WIKIPEDIA that has a problem with the GOOD IMAGE being used. I tried solving it amicably but you decide to change the IMAGE again for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you REFUSE to a have ANY DISCUSSION but continuously KEEP changing the image, the post to have a discussion BARELY lasted 48 hours BEFORE you changed the IMAGE yet AGAIN... You are a VANDAL and I will NOW REPORT you....I wrote those in CAPS LOCK cause you seem to be blind or something ...--Stemoc 12:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has been up for almost two weeks, but you have consistently refused to give an explanation why you replaced a good image with an inferior one (one with distorted facial expression), or why you think the image you replaced is an inferior one (and it has been there for a long time before you replaced it). I am merely reverting to its original state before you changed it without proper justification. I have no problem if you want to take this up with the administrators, even if the discussion is ongoing. Hzh (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2 weeks? wow you are a bad liar too, the discussion on the talk page was started on May 15th and you changed it back to the 2011 image on May 18th...if my Maths is correct, that is NOT 2 weeks so please leave the discussion cause you aim is to push your AGENDA. Go do a Google search on the recent image, its been used by multiple sites and no one is complaining about it NOT representing Dornan.. the previous image was NOT only outdated but POOR as i have said many times (bad lighting/bad cropping) and as per your comments, is not a representation of what Dornan looks like ..and FOR THE LAST TIME LEARN TO make a STATEMENT in ONE POST and STOP EDIT CONFLICTING..Its RUDE and IRRITATING...I will revert you the next time you do that.....--Stemoc 12:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, almost two weeks since the discussion was first opened, I then discovered that you are the one who actually replaced a good image according to the criteria of WP:LEADIMAGE ("natural") with one that is distorted (therefore an inferior one). So I restored the original on May 15 here. So yes, that's almost 2 weeks, and all attempts to get you to explain your action has so far failed in almost two weeks. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

and again you use the word "distorted", there is NOTHING distorted about the NEW IMAGE, its ONLY YOU who has a problem with the image, JUST YOU I already reported you to AIV but Dwpaul decided to make his own point and got the report removed without providing ANY input to the current discussion....The original as you say was changed by me in february and between february-May, NO ONE had a problem with the image..Only you and you actually replaced with with a very pathetic images as well from the Berlin film festival and when you did not get your way, you reverted it back to the 2011 one..again, I urge you to NOT touch the image or replace it cause next time i'm reporting you directly to an admin..--Stemoc 13:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DWPaul did not "get" the report at AIV removed. DWPaul does not have that kind of influence around here. DWPaul made an observation in order to ensure that an uninvolved admin would not reflexively act on your report without due investigation. The admin apparently concurred with my assessment, since they removed the report without action. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to this edit on April 1 here. Again, I would repeat that I have no problem with you reporting to an admin. There is currently a vote on the Jamie Dornan page, please give your vote. Hzh (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Donnie Yen

Hi there,

I understand you have reverted the Donnie Yen page to one that is actually quite outdated. I understand your reason is the non-free images. While the non-free images issue are still being disputed, I think they should still remain in the page.

Even if they were to remove, the relevant subsections should be not implicated. You revert removes much more than just non-free images, please do take a look.

Thank you.

China's Tiger (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

NO, the bots ONLY REMOVE the non-free images, they DO NOT replace the old images back so when your images are removed (and they will be), some poor guy would have to individually finds the old images and captions and add them back...we get MANY MANY cases of people adding copyvio images only for them to be deleted and remvoed by the bot leaving the page without any images, sometimes for longer than 18 months ..Please restore the section your wrote if you want but DO NOT remove the free images and replace them with your non-free ones.... just because a company closed down DOES NOT mean its images are now FREE..--Stemoc 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but relax. We can have an adult conversation without the bold and the Caps. =)

I have removed the disputed images, "non-free" images for now. As for the relevant subsections, I have restored them.

Thanks China's Tiger (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that, as you can see, its quite common for me to talk to people who are probably too immature to be online and thus i have to use BOLDED words to make a point, and thanks for reverting to the free version, btw, one rule for images is when there is a free image available, non-free images are not allowed to be used for BLP's....--Stemoc 13:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calibrador (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Calibrador (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. TL22 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

exactly what part was "mis interpreted".. I would like to know as the other user keeps calling me different names nad has now started anotehr thread on me claiming to be the victim when its obvious who the vandal here is....--Stemoc 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I just randomly appeared as an uninvolved editor. I realized you misinterpreted an edit as vandalism (in this case a change of images). Please link me the discussion where the name-calling started. --TL22 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I can help you out, ToonLucas22, the name-calling is all one sided, and you're on their talk page currently. Calibrador (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at United States presidential election, 2016. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, Maybe you should read this thread because you have most definitely blocked the wrong user and I'm in Fiji and its nearly 5am here and in the last 5 hours, I have only made 2 edits to that page you linked above...--Stemoc 16:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc, I blocked you at 16:34 UTC. You last reverted at the article at 14:56 UTC. As for the discussion at ANI, it wouldn't alter my decision. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the other editor is disruptive as a result of his COI, that doesn't entitle you to edit-war with him over it. It's not one of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO, which are rarely successfully invoked anyway. As an aside, your comments at ANI and at AN3 would be more credible if they weren't so inflammatory and over-the-top. That's just my reaction as an administrator, but I'm not here to decide the COI issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, Well I tried multiple times to make a direct and proper approach but as you can see from the thread, the user kept disrupting and deflecting with lies after lies and even when i countered him with the truth, he would keep denying it, I even added his previous name to the title of the thread on 3RR as other users visiting the thread were confused as to how exactly this was self promotion when the user adding the images was named "Calibrador" and the images being forced added belonged to a "Gage Skidmore", it already confused one user above but he kept removing it trying to hide his previous identity making it seem like I was Hounding him when it was clearly obvious as i mentioned below that this user is a single purpose account trying to gain publicity by "enforcing" his images into articles, just google his name and you will find the truth...Wikipedia is a "free" and informative site, its not a .com, but a .org ..but when users start using it for their own "financial" gain...how exactly does it make me the bad guy here? This is the first time in my nearly 9 year history I got blocked on enwiki and for the wrong reason and for that I have now completely lost faith in this site.--Stemoc 04:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc, everything you say indicates to me that this issue has become a bit of an obsession, which is unfortunate for any editor let alone an admin. Still, that's just my own view, and it's not worth debating. As for your "lost faith", that makes no sense. Why lose faith in the entire en-wiki because of the action of one administrator? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that I'm not worthy of respect? I'm going to assume that you wouldn't have become an admin at wikimedia if you weren't a valuable contributor, which should mean that you add value when you contribute to any wikimedia project, not just the foundation itself. I'd hate to think you lost faith in one of the projects - and a big one at that - over one incident. Anyway, maybe you'll see things differently later.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23; Not an obsession, I just find it odd that this user has been doing this for "years" now and yet has never been warned or blocked before..does he have a "get out of jail" free card?. My actual work on wikimedia entails reverting and blocking 'cross-wiki' vandals and spambots but its always this wiki which disappoints me where we allow the bad to thrive and we block the good, lol not me..I'm far from 'good' ...but to be blocked for trying to prevent someone violating our policies is where one must draw the line. I just don't see what I did wrong, All I did was find a problem and trying to solve the problem but was not able too which was made worse by the user intentionally getting their name changed to avoid being implicated for such. I know i definitely didn't violate the 3RR and even if we read the wiki on UTC, reverting someone that keeps adding images to self promote is not seen as 3RR but "vandalism revert". I always give reasons for my revert on "edit summaries" ..it has been proven in more than one occasion that talking to the user is futile cause he never replies to questions posed at him regarding this even it it was by an admin...--Stemoc 05:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I think you should reconsider your decision, but in terms of a block itself... as a Meta administrator, and a GS (on small wikis), Stemoc should know and understand. Tropicalkitty (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, you can not blindly revert Calibrador's edits because you believe they have a COI. Continuing to do so will no doubt result in a longer block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, I recommend you read WP:Don't cry COI. You started attacking and edit warring over an user just because they had a COI and that's disruptive behavior. --TL22 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: /@ToonLucas22: I believe?,no I knew , as I said, just go through the users edits, he has been doong this for years and check out his contribution on commons wikipedia under the name Gage. He even tried to change an image's name to his trademark byline of "by Gage Skidmore" on commons which I declined and even started creating doubles (making crops of the SAME IMAGE) to replace here on enwikipedia because he wanted all the images on enwiki to carry his name in the image title, don't believe me?, look up his contribution..when i realised what he was doing, I had to monitor his edits as a Commons licence reviewer..this was discussed on the previous WP:ANI/I incident he filed on me linked on a thread above in May. I recommend you read all of those and screen his edits both here and on commons and then you would under that Gage is a single purpose users and his aim is to self promote his interests. So i get blocked because admins refused to take action on him the last time he was reported on WP:ANI...pathetic. --Stemoc 04:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a reason to attack and edit war over a COI editor though. That's what got you blocked. You may benefit from WP:KETTLE. --TL22 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You should look at a previous case involving him last month, he re-offended and instead of him being indef blocked, i was..saying that I'm just as bad as him is an insinuation....If admins refuse to do their job, editors have to step up...--Stemoc 00:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Stemoc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello, I don't know how to reply to a message, I hope this reaches you somehow. I am NOT an agent, I run the official website for Louis Ferreira. Since he's an actor, his photo should be of him practicing his craft. The page is about his acting career. The photo that's on there is in fact a candid taken by Sean Koo who works for YVR Shoots (Sean has been cropped out of the original photo which can be found on this webpage: http://yvrshoots.com/2013/09/your-shoot-motives-kristin-lehman-louis-ferreira-start-season-2.html#more-21360 and on Sean Koo's Instagram Page: https://instagram.com/scoobykoo/). As I have said before I have started the process of obtaining permission to use a headshot of Mr Ferreira while acting. I expect to receive permission to upload the photo within a few days at the most - I understand it currently takes about 11 days for Wikimedia approval. Once I have this permission is there any reason why you would object to an official headshot sanctioned by the copyright holder?Bczogalla (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

@Bczogalla::I'm aware of what candid means and yes I'm aware of Sean Koo taking that picture and as i said below, the image in his infobox should be of a headshot, other images of him being on the set can be added within the article in different sections if you please and YES, if you can get him an OTRS-permitted image, which is appropriate for his infobox then yes, you can use it, but in the meantime, the current image stays...--Stemoc 03:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis Ferreira

Hello, I'd like to discuss the photo on Louis Ferreira's Wikipedia Page. Of course I understand that this is not a personal resume page, but is it not reasonable to make sure everybody - including the person the page is about - agrees on the content? We are currently working on obtaining the copyrights to an official MOTIVE photograph which would be far more appropriate for a working actor that a candid photo. Again, this is not a question of personal preference but to reflect the professional look of the page. Louis Ferreira is a professional actor, so his photo should be of him doing what this page is about: acting. Please let me know what your thoughts are.Bczogalla (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

@Bczogalla:, No, Wikipedia is based on facts and related and confirmed sources so if Louis does something wrong and it makes the news, it will be added to his article and anyone that tries to remove it can and will be blocked so this is why people/celebs should not be using wikipedia as a resume service. We only accept "free images" and we prefer images in the infobox to be of a headshot, not some random long range picture of him on the set, those images belong somewhere within the article. You can work on getting him an official image and when and if you do, you should take it to commons:Commons:OTRS for verification of the image as we get 100's of cases of people claiming to be the celeb in question or their agent/publicist 'forcefully' and 'deceitfully' trying to get their images changed to copyrighted images ...I doubt the current pic is a candid photo, infact most of our best images were taken by fans who freely released those images for use on wikipedia...btw, if you are his agent/rep or if you are getting paid to edit his page, you should probably mention that on your userpage.....Wikipedia has a strong policy against those who don't do that..--Stemoc 02:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

/* E-mail */ reply attempt

Hello, I don't know how to reply to a message, I hope this reaches you somehow. I am NOT an agent, I run the official website for Louis Ferreira. Since he's an actor, his photo should be of him practicing his craft. The page is about his acting career. The photo that's on there is in fact a candid taken by Sean Koo who works for YVR Shoots (Sean has been cropped out of the original photo which can be found on this webpage: http://yvrshoots.com/2013/09/your-shoot-motives-kristin-lehman-louis-ferreira-start-season-2.html#more-21360 and on Sean Koo's Instagram Page: https://instagram.com/scoobykoo/). As I have said before I have started the process of obtaining permission to use a headshot of Mr Ferreira while acting. I expect to receive permission to upload the photo within a few days at the most - I understand it currently takes about 11 days for Wikimedia approval. Once I have this permission is there any reason why you would object to an official headshot sanctioned by the copyright holder?Bczogalla (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Category names

Hi there. I've reconsidered what you said about category renaming on my talk page, and after studying the Wikipedia guidelines more carefully, I've come to the following conclusions.

• I have restored the Category:Fijian Hindus and Category:Fijian Sikhs to what they were. My rationale for splitting them was that the last census showed a small number of I-Taukei converts to Hinduism (see the Religion in Fiji article), and that the categories should be reorganized to provide for that possibility. HOWEVER, there are at present no biographies of i-Taukei Hindus on Wikipedia, so my reorganization was premature. I've reverted myself accordingly. If and when there are biographies of I-Taukei Hindus on Wikipedia, well, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm sorry I acted prematurely.
• Unfortunately, I cannot do the same for the Category:Indo-Fijian Christians and Category:Indo-Fijian Muslims. As you know, the great majority of Fijian Christians are I-Taukei, and there is at least one I-Taukei Muslim with an article on Wikipedia (Apisai Tora). As I explained on my talk page, these categories also have to be linked to international and Indian-specific categories, and therefore they have to be rationalized. David Cannon (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, Its a rarity, I have heard of known itaukei who convert to islam but rarely do they convert to Hinduism unless they were raised by a hindu family and even then, most are not that famous enough to have wikipedia articles. Indian names are dead give-aways so people will not confuse them with itaukei names anyways :) ..--Stemoc 10:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons categories

FYI, I've added the following note to the "Jeb Bush" category page at Wikimedia Commons: "PLEASE NOTE: According to official policy of Wikimedia Commons, all images 'should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories).' Therefore, if an image of Jeb Bush is from 2015, please do not put it into this category, and instead put it into the sub-category 'Jeb Bush in 2015'. Do not put it in both." It's otherwise very difficult to make use of the category system. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You should post this on my commons talk page, not here and p.s I only added ONE image to both categories and it was to ensure it gets seen as most people ignore the current category..next time please post on my commons talk page..--Stemoc 04:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, will post there next time. Sorry, I didn't realize it made a difference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It does to me since i'm more heavily involved on commons than here so when i see the big yellow notification on enwiki, I expect it to be something regarding an edit i made here...just to keep things in check..--Stemoc 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Andy Whitfield". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Andy Whitfield, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peceli Yato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Espoir. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ben Volavola

Why do you list Ben's full name as Ben Shankar? Is his name Ben Shankar Volavola? Or is it Benjamin Skankar Volavola? Why do you insist on using a pic of his face that looks like he is retarded or in pain?Castlemate (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Its Ben Shankar, he uses his mother's surname though, with Fijians, surnames are rarely if ever the same as their parents.. that pic is actually much better than the other one where he looks like he is sucking something....--Stemoc 05:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA vote

Hi Stemoc. Can you please rephrase your RfA vote to be less... confrontational. There's no need to be uncivil towards the opposers in the manner you were - I'd be removing it if I was clerking the RfA, but as the nominator I don't think I should. Make no mistake though, a comment like that is likely to be ignored by the closing bureaurcrat. Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

nah, won't be changing it, I dulled it down a bit in my head before i posted it..Over the last 3 years some good candidates have failed because of a few dumb idiots that seem to think they are some sort of "kingmakers", when all they are is a bunch of low-life bullies whose lives won't amount to much so they are trying to bring everyone else feel as well....The crats can ignore it if they like..my one comment won't be making much of a difference..--Stemoc 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batman: Bad Blood, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Batwing and James Garrett. 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) 10:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Biggar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macarena. 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) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

Good day! Please do not rewrite the article as You wish. There are rules of Wikipedia, and You delete the right information, and not add reliable information in the article, this is wrong.--Onukab (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC) @Onukab:, you do not own the article and thus yo should not just randomly remove stuff without giving a valid reason.--Stemoc 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, the photo was inserted only a few days ago without discussion and without explanation. WP:BLPs do not carry photos because they are the most recent, or because you like them. If you have an argument for why the 2011 photo should be replaced, take it to the talk page of the article per WP:BRD. Incidentally, do not threaten other users in your edit summaries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was replacing an outdated "side shot" with an actual "headshot", if you are too blind to see why the change was needed then you are not a good judge of character, not every change needs discussion, some can be implemented if it seems fit..owning of articles is what causes admins to force restrictions on what is added to articles and that is why i kept reverting that vandal who kept changing the image back because he thinks he owns the article....no one does.--Stemoc 09:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've already said, please take it to the article's talk page. I don't WP:OWN the article either, meaning that if there's a dispute over which image is the most appropriate it should be discussed with other editors for maximum input on behalf of interested parties. I can't read your mind, nor the other editor's mind... so, no, there's nothing 'obvious' about your choice.

This also applies to Onukab who is a new editor. Stemoc, you have enough experience to know that you should assume good faith. Fisticuffs on each other's talk pages, and uncivil edit summaries do not make for a collaborative environment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA vote (2)

Yiur RfA votes appear to be getting problematic. These are the kind of votes that are discouraging pontential candidates from throwing their hat in ring ring. Try to imagine if your kind of votes are the kind of thing you would relish on your own RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

mate, see my recent vote on that RfA reform but i will not blindly support a candidate who is pretty much ignoring the situation..nothing to do with EDITCOUNTITS cause i wouldn't care if the user made less than 10,000 edits after returning..its finding out why he disappeared on both occasions and why he seemingly re-appeared without acknowledging his whereabouts.. RfA is very important and I won't be the 40 odd voters who will support a user based on their "recent" activity only..lets put it this way, would you trust an employee who disappears and then comes back straight to work acting like nothing has happened 3 years later...and then does it again over a year later? --Stemoc 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WMF

My guess is that WMF will take notice only if (a) they think fundraising potential could be jeopardized or (b) there is significant adverse publicity in the mainstream media (which of course is related to (a)). As always I could be wrong. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

They fired James Heilman "during" the donation drive and yet a proper reason for his firing has still not been give, (b) they hired 2 employees, both with google background at the start of the year without giving a reason as to why James was fired and why they were getting 2 more 'board' members...a Vote of no confidence for the 'WHOLE' board is long overdue...--Stemoc 18:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Unjustfied undoing of edits

Please stop undoing my edits using pathetic excuses such as "Not neded, already mentioned in the categories." You can't have a category included if it isn't backed by references—any ignoramus can tell you that. Also, you claim "That is not what the article is saying, stop trolling"; however, you provide no evidence and the article in fact clearly says that. So it is you who is actually trolling.49.195.28.40 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not unjustified, you are adding racial propaganda, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a BLOG, the article in The Economist does not have an author's name which means it was written by someone trying to hide their identity which makes the article not verifiable. Pleas do not insist on adding that article again to any of the pages, it will be swiftly removed and you will be blocked.... Wikipedia is based on neutrality and if such attacks are added, it has to come from a verifiable and reliable source, The Economist is more of a blog than a reliable news source.--Stemoc 01:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Economist is more of a blog than a reliable news source." Are you for real?! You know how to use Wikipedia, so do yourself a favour and visit The Economist. So that is one lie you have peddled which has been exposed.
"the article in The Economist does not have an author's name which means it was written by someone trying to hide their identity which makes the article not verifiable." Your ignorance is astounding! If you had bothered to click the wikilink of the reference then you would have realsied the reason for its Editorial anonymity.
Wikipedia is a refuge of knowledge, so you shouldn't go around making ignorant, uneducated pronouncements; you especially shouldn't go around edit-warring and removing well-sourced content and then seeking to have other editors blocked from editing because they resist your ignorant viewpoint. I hope, in the knowledge-seeking spirit of Wikipedia, you will have realised your misjudgement.49.181.173.186 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The only one with an ignorant view here is you, you are intentionally adding false information to make a Point, again this is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. That article cannot be used because its completely biased and fabricated, 2nd as mentioned earlier, there is no author's name which means it cannot be verifiable thus we cannot use it and yes, its not a news source, Unless you add information like that from a verifiable new source, it will be removed over and over again. and Yes I'm aware of the anonymity clause on The Economist, this is why its not a reliable source especially since its clearly written by a disgruntled blog peddler who is not being heard by his blogs and without an ounce of proof..Its best if you join other sites if you intend to push this any further, Wikipedia is not your personal propaganda website and will not be used as such--Stemoc 01:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying that anything referenced to The Economist can't be added to Wiki?! If that is your position then i will gladly re-add my edit when the article is unprotected, and then i will make a mockery of you when i take your ignorant stance to arbitration. Your excuse is possibly a cover for an ulterior motive, otherwise you must be very ignorant. BTW: what point do you suppose i am trying to peddle?49.180.158.216 (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mackenzie Lintz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mackenzie Lintz 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/Mackenzie Lintz 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Swarm ♠ 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Professional Rugby Organization

FYI... you created a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL ...thanks for the heads up, fixed the link..--Stemoc 11:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Undone edit

Hi Stemoc. Please don't change other people's userpages, especially accusing them of lying while doing so. People are given a lot of free reign on their pages - and in this case, the individual may have been on Wikipedia as an IP previously, or indeed using a different account. If you have an issue with the date, perhaps asking the individual would be a better way of handling things? Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this charming edit of yours... WTT is correct, I used a different account when I first joined. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of Theunicyclegirl, i just found it odd that they were created exactly a year apart...--Stemoc 00:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what kind of conspiracy that timing would suggest. And how would it make me a liar? Then again, maybe 13-year-old me had nefarious plans... More seriously, I think your conspiracy sensors need re-tuning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I noticed you changed the image on the Donald Trump article, while it clearly stated do not change the image without obtaining consensus. MB298 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: I have been on that page for a while now, and i changed it to the same image..maybe you have not noticed but the image you are trying to "keep" is a thumbnail..The image i placed was the one used originally until one 'troll' who has no idea how to crop or fix images made a change and it has been used ever since (see the file name)..The lighting on the image I placed is not bad, if you look at its image history, i was told many time to make it 'bad' because the original image is very bright..quality wise, the image I placed is of a much much higher quality taking into account trump's "real" skin colour instead of the fake brown tan used in the thumbnail and its also a much better proportionate crop for the infobox..I have seen recent pics of trump including this from January and his skin tone is nothing like the one that 'thumbnail' is portraying..so if people want an image which is a fake portrayal of what he actually looks like, be my guest, keep the current thumbnail..--Stemoc 23:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I may start a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, with the current image, your image, and a couple alternatives. MB298 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

sure, throw it in, I'd rather a HQ, "real" image of his is used instead of using the 'only' image where he is not making a weird face..Its hard to find a pic of him where he isn't making some odd face..that has been an issue from the start..and also, anyone that watches Trump on TV (non-americans) who come to his article would wonder why Wikipedia has 'photo-shopped' his image...makes us look like trump supporters lol...avoid choosing a low-quality image though...the only thing worse than a 'shopped' image is one which is of a very inferior quality..--Stemoc 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Tilly Keeper

Hi, if someone contests your proposed deletion, please do not restore the PROD template, per WP:CONTESTED. If you still believe the article should be deleted after the PROD has been contested, you should list it for deletion via WP:AFD. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors 07:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

depends on the definition of "contest" ..willfully removing a large template from an article you have 'links' to (PR Agent of actress) because it makes it look ugly or means it will be deleted soon isn't really 'contestable"..yes next time its removed, I will AfD it..it was 3 days away from being deleted anyways..--Stemoc 11:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't depend. WP:CONTESTED says "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a [PROD] tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith". Your response after the first objection (let alone the second) should have been AFD, not revert. AnemoneProjectors 16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, EastEnders is not a daytime soap but a prime time one that is one of the biggest TV ahows in the UK. AnemoneProjectors 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Anything that runs over 5000 episodes for 30 years is a soap, day-time or night-time..does not matter..actors on soap's aren't generally 'notable' unless they work on mainstream television or movies..--Stemoc 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a soap. It is mainstream though, like I said, one of the biggest shows in the UK. British soaps are very different to American ones. I just thought you should know since you called it a daytime soap at least twice, it's not a comment on the notability of actors. AnemoneProjectors 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Digicel Play, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages AMC and History Channel. 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, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

I just noticed that, about a year ago, you blocked me on Meta-Wiki, without mentioning a reason. Could you please explain why? RedPanda25 14:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

for teh lulz? ..you could have mentioned that here a year ago?....you were collateral ..its odd when people make their first post on a known LTA troll's talkpage..nevertheless, the block has been removed...G'day--Stemoc 14:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion tag

Hi Stemoc, can you kindly review pages properly before adding speedy deletion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlaisaK (talk • contribs) 11:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Flikr image upload

Can this image be uploaded on Wikipedia?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/urbanmixer/105446162/in/photolist-ajsPs-ajsMi-ajsN4-ajsNE-ajrth-ajs79-ajs6n-ajs43-ajs3v-ajs9o-ajs2A-ajs8Y-ajs5X-ajrCH-ajs33-ajs4Y-ajrCj-ajrFk-ajrF1-ajt3M-ajrtH-ajs8p-ajrwo-ajrrq-ajrBh-ajrqJ-ajrDV-ajrAS-ajrBH-ajrvs-ajrEn-ajrua-ajrvQ-ajsZt-ajsdD-ajsqD-ajsY3-ajrmU-ajrDp-ajsZ2-ajsWi-ajsc4-ajsXA-ajrsW-ajsC7-ajsww-ajryu-ajsQW-ajrsu-ajsHf

Karan Kamath (talk · contribs) 06:54, 28 May 2016 UTC

@Karan Kamath:, sadly, No.. The image is licenced under creative commons licence but under "non-commercial" and thus it cannot be uploaded or used on wikipedia, we only allow CC-BY or CC-BY-SA Licences as well as USGov and public domain ones...--Stemoc 07:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

-Danke. Karan Kamath (talk · contribs) 10:37, 29 May 2016 UTC

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Calling other users "idiots" in your edit summary is considered a personal attack. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

that has been removed multiple times and restored by me multiple times, when ppl refuse to give a 'valid reason ' for removal what else do you call them? If they don't follow the competition, they should not be editing that page..only troll remove something without a valid reason....--Stemoc 09:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI

The ANI thread was closed appropriately. That board is for incidents - you did not seem to have an incident, but perhaps some proposal. Try WP:VPI --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Yeah but i posted on WP:AN, notifying sysops on an issue which is becoming a problem, not on WP:ANI as it was not related to any ONE incident..but anyways, I decided that if you want to fix wikipedia, you cannot do it on wikipedia so I took it to meta as an 'Idea'..Take a look if you want to understand why i started that thread...--Stemoc 15:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

My bad it was AN. FWIW, I was able to follow your proopsal as written on Meta, but it didn't register in the AN post.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, I wrote it after it was derailed on enwiki as its apparent there are people here who do not want it to happen cause some of the worst trolls are those that don't only 'sock' a lot and harass other users but also use wikipedia as their own personal battleground and fear an enforced policy that would not only affect banned users but them as well..not all trolls are banned and blocked, some have free reign ;)..--Stemoc 00:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion concerning you has been opened on AN/I

You can find it here. BMK (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sweeeet, tell me how it goes...--Stemoc 02:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Politics

Just out of curiosity: Do you not feel sorry for poor mexicans entering the US hoping for a job that gives them perhaps a quarter of your income? Or what about Syrians fleeing the war in their country? Do they not deserve humane living conditions? Shouldn't they recieve help? And what about the billions who will die from climate change-reduced crop yields (let's not kid ourselves - climate change is real)? --Mathmensch (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your User Page

Just a heads up I reverted an edit that was made to your user page. To keep with the consensus that was established at WP:MFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rajiv Dhall

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 Rajiv Dhall 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 credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Rajiv Dhall, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, why are you a "reviewer"? do you even know how to review articles? 2ndly, you never tag an article created by an experienced editor for speedy deletion, either you PROD it or AfD it and if you do not know this basic rule, please get your reviewer rights removed.I will revert again if you tag it for speedy deletion.--Stemoc 06:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Stemoc Who told you that article from an "experienced editor" cannot be marked for CSD and why do you think you should get the special treatment? Dont you know that the article creator CANNOT remove the CSD tag himself? DO NOT ENGAGE IN 3RR WITH ME. You have a track record of engaging in 3RR and have been blocked earlier. I am going too restore the CSD tag and should you attempt to remove it, make no mistakes, I WILL report you. Let someone else deal with the CSD and if the CSD is not warranted, they will remove it. Consider this your last warning. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you do not know the role of a reviewer, I'm going to get your reviewer rights removed..good day...I didn't realise the standards for choosing reviewers were so low..--Stemoc 07:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Rajiv Dhall. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I told you, I have reported you here. Kindly discuss your CSD removal on that page. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Melanesian Championships in Athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Copeland. 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) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson

I reverted your change in the photo for Gary Johnson. Someone recently changed it from the "June 2016" photo to one released by the campaign, and you undid that change. Any particular reason? At first glance, during a campaign, an official photo from the campaign seems a better fit than some photo uploaded from flickr, which is all I can tell from the one you preferred. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tarl N.:,Since they are running in the elections, it needs to be current and the image i added is current, it was taken last month, the one you are trying to restore is from 2013 and also not good enough (resolution wise) to be used in an infobox for a person, when it comes to politicians, the more recent image is the better image (Except Bernie Sanders cause we could never find a decent pic to use)--Stemoc 03:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you are claiming it's official, but the Wikimedia page doesn't say that. And the other picture doesn't say 2013, either. Looking at the campaign website, I don't see either picture as an official portrait. Documentation on either of those?

As a general comment, I can understand why someone would prefer the other photo - it looks friendly, this photo does not. If we can document that this is his official campaign portrait, I won't object any further. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the flickr site, I see the other picture listed as 2013, so that answers my question. But the current picture is listed as "uploaded June 2016", unlike other pictures which specify when taken. The album appears to be about the Johnson campaign, is there any way to know that the site is official? Tarl N. (discuss) 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Actually that image you want to use is from 2011, not 2013, and also, why are we using a photoshopped image of a politician, we are not here to promote politicians, so we do not need to use " out-dated official" images, if you go to their site, you will see that his recent image is the one he is standing with Bill Weld, look at the image he is using as his masthead on twitter, the one he is using as his default pic is also available for use, but i won't add it because its too dark for use on wikipedia, The image i added is from their official flickr page (odd since most politicians do not use a "free" license on their flick accounts), please stop changing it, the images of politicians have to be as current as it can get...--Stemoc 03:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted that edit *once* - no need to say "please stop changing it".

But to get back to my question, how do document that this is the official portrait? The flickr album is named "garyjohnson", but that means nothing. Do we have a reference where the campaign says "these photos are official"? If we do, it's worth adding that documentation to the wikimedia page, since that currently says "uploaded from flickr". That's why I originally assumed you were replacing a campaign picture with one you'd randomly picked up. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: randomly picked images don't come from official sources, I didn't add the official tag in the image name because there are many official images that were added for his campaign, i just chose the best one..that his official flickr and twitter account (See his official website for the links below), he is using the 2011 image on his official facebook (for now)..Those images are official, funny how you would accept his old image as official even though it does not say or link to an official source but refuse one...and also, i told you not to keep changing it because i have had similar experiences before and i have no intentions of breaking the 3RR rule just so that i can add a 'correct' and recent and high quality image for some politician...You cannot document that that image is official, as i said, he added many (see link above), I just chose the best one of the lot, the one that is recent but also looks good on wikipedia--Stemoc 04:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are stating "THIS IS OFFICIAL", I'm asking you how we document this. After a decade on Wikipedia, I don't take *anyone*'s word. If you're going to claim it's official, we need some kind of linkage documenting that. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Links were provided above, you just refuse to accept them even though they are official, so its not my problem, its yours.. *ten years* and yet you do not understand how image licensing works on wikiMedia...The only documentation is that those images were from "Official flickr source" and since you refuse that, as well as the fact that its officially used on his twitter account and his "official flickr" account linked on his "official" campaign website..I'm not sure how much more "official" it can get..what next, you want Gary Johnson's official birth certificate?..so you prefer to use the 5 year old 'photoshopped' image that is out of focus and makes him look like he is in his mid 40's (even though he is in his early 60's) just because he is "smiling" in that image and then you tell me that you have been here for 10 years and yet you seem to not understand how images are added to wikimedia and how they are used...please!.....even if the image i added was not "OFFICIAL", it was a much better option than the 5 year old one you want to "impose" on his article and it would still get used because we are an ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA, we are not their publicist or their secretaries, we post facts and information truthfully and we don't care if those facts put some politicians to shame....*ten years* you say, you should know that ..the worst people on wikipedia are page hoggers who stick to one section of wikipedia and refuse to allow anyone to change anything unless they approve, the only people worse than them are those that impose their own images across wikimedia to promote themselves....... --Stemoc 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you listen to yourself, please?

Casting aspersions that have nothing to do with me is counterproductive. I don't know who you are frustrated with, but we've had ONE interaction. This one. One revert with a talk page discussion. Consider WP:AOBF.

I'm not saying that I prefer the other image (I did say I could understand why someone would prefer it - see my specific wording in the third paragraph of this section). I'm not trying to impose an image. I'm saying that if you're going to claim this image is official, we need to document how we know it's official, so nobody else makes the mistake of only seeing "this is uploaded from flickr".

Your saying you know they are from "Official flickr source" doesn't help me. And you telling me doesn't help Wikipedia. The Wikimedia page should state that it's official and how it's known to be official.

You say that album is used on the campaign website - great, that's what we need. Where does the website specify this album as the source of official pictures? That's what we need. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, you don't really know how images on wikimedia works, if you did, you would not ask such a silly question, you were given many proof but its you who refuses them, apparently you cannot read either, scroll down on the main page of their "official" (or do you need proof of that as well?) website and you will finds links to their official 'social media' sites, guess what, there is a link to their flickr account as well..I won't waste my time with this, unless you have something important to say, then reply or please don't..I have no intentions of banging my head on a wall again..I have done it too many times explaining to trolls already..--Stemoc 05:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Teen Wolf (season 6). If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This notification is in regards to the comment of "Do not re-add without talking to me", which fails WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop talking about something you don't have knowledge of, I removed that fake actress a month ago but you restored it, I did not see it or i would have removed it again (i was not notified) so why did you not bother to discuss with me before restoring her (him) a month ago? I'm not a noob and I do not even edit that article or act like i own it, looking at the page history, apparently you do. Because you re-added the false info, it got picked by more news articles because they believe "Wikipedia is true", it has taken me 5 months to get rid of that fake actress (person) across the internet and here we have a random editor on wiki adding false information back in. Just to clarify since you did not bother asking me (an experienced editor) why i removed that actress and randomly reverted me without notifying me a month ago, she is "NOT REAL", its a fake persona being used by a guy actually, he created multiple fake twitter accounts as well as accounts on Instagram/facebook to "boost " his fake profile, I got a few of his pages on other wiki sites deleted including wikia but obviously, the damage was done, news media picked up on it..I found out about it on IMDb where i contribute, and by the time staff found out about it, the damage was done, but he user keeps adding fake credits to IMDb using multiple account names, they have used IP's too before to add their fake credits..as i said, the damage was done, respectable sites also picked up the news adn went with it because of 'fake publicity' I actually got his/latest account deleted on IMDb just 2 days back..he keeps creating one a week and IMDb staff are finding it hard to deal with the "troll" (by all definition)..again, do not re-add, if anything, google that name, you will find multiple images of asian girls which the person used, 2 of them are known actress, one is a chinese model..--Stemoc 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about the content, so that essay was a waste of time. Sorry. I care about your WP:OWN behaviour. And hence, the original post. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My WP:OWN behaviour? sorry but I was not the one who added false information back to an article which i created, that would be you and guess what, its you who is violating WP:OWN since you basically said you do not care about the content of that article, I'd advice you not to touch it..that page gets 1500 views daily, a lot more in an ext few months, you have made 40 edits to that article, I only made 4, and in both times to remove the false credit...please "Read up" on WP:OWN so stop claiming others are violating it when its just you who is doing it..--Stemoc 01:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's read WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Example: An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions, You: "I'd advice you not to touch it". Example: "If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them", You: "Do not re-add without talking to me". And apparently I'm the one who "owns" it. Interesting, wouldn't you say? Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when did "removing false information" become WP:OWN?, i did not discourage anything, I implied that that information should not be added without talking to me since it would be too long to give a reason in the edit summary. I did not remove legitimate edits, I removed false information oh and also this, i wont tell you what it is since you seem to know everything....--Stemoc 03:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Regarding the Phelps infobox photo: Your edit summary was wholly inappropriate. If it wouldn't be appropriate or allowable to say in talk page comments (and what you added in the edit summary would not be seen as anything other than completely offensive), then don't say it in an edit summary. Secondly, If you have a problem with the photo I added, please take your concerns to the talk page where we can discuss. I will be starting a discussion there after I leave this message and hope you will choose to take part. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Thought you'd be interested in this (look at the last edit down the page) - looks like a vandal edit but is more of a BLP vio. Is he allowed to do whatever because of all his photo contributions? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Re this, after I undid your edit on Malcolm Turnbull. I'll take this to AN/I, if you continue with such behaviour. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Might I add, referring to a living person as Megamind can be considered an attack, per WP:BLP. I would suggest you desist from making such comments, too. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's you guys that are enforcing an image of a sitting PM where his forehead makes him look like the villain from that movie..I mentioned it many times on his talk page and even without consensus, that image was FORCED upon the article so now you are here telling me to follow a consensus which was never there? Go Look at that image again and read my comment on the talkpage 8 months ago..I understand that we will never find a good image of Donald Trump cause he takes bad pictures but to "INTENTIONALLY" use a poor image for a sitting PM even though better ones are available is downright stupid....and also, that so called "non-existent" consensus of yours only applies to that page...continue using that crappy convexy image, it only makes wikipedia look bad, I'm fine with that--Stemoc 14:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You continuously are misusing the edit summary feature, by either attacking the subject (in this case, Turnbull) or attacking an editor (in this instance, myself). I note you've been warned for this before: [12], [13], [14], [15]. You've been here for years: you know better.

I'm not going to ask again. The very next time you are uncivil to myself or another editor, be sure that I will be opening a discussion over at AN/I to discuss such conduct.

If you have a problem with Turnbull's image, you discuss it with editors on his talk page. You do not edit war, shout and then proceed to adding the same image elsewhere whilst using an edit summary to attack others and the subject.

The only thing that makes Wikipedia look bad, is your aforementioned conduct. Stop it, please. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss what really? there was no consensus, so anything which has been added without consensus, can be removed without Consensus...I did npt attack any editor, but the image..I saw the image the day it was added on flickr and I intentionally refused to add it to wikipedia because of its poor quality but obviously someone did and its now a mess, I know images and IMO, its one of the worst images we have and if you think otherwise, that that is your opinion...I did NOT attack turnbull, but the image which was being used, I posted the same comment on his talk page..Stop trying to WP:OWN articles...again, no consensus so it can be replaced withOUT discussion.--Stemoc 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Have a good read of WP:EDITCONSENSUS – consensus can be established via long-standing edits/editing. If you dispute the Turnbull article's image, you can seek to have it changed via discussing it (yep, that means again) on the talk page. After that, have a look through WP:BRD — if your bold edit (replacing the Turnbull image) is disputed by another editor: don't revert their edit, discuss it on the talk page.

Throw around WP:OWN all you like... I see you did it above to another editor.

You referred to Turnbull in the image in question, as megamind. In a negative connotation (hence your insistence the image be removed). Have a read of WP:LIBEL too.

I've said all I have to say on the matter, please exercise a bit more diligence with the words you use in future. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand how consensus works and only one person agreed with the use of that pentagon image, ironically, it was the same person who uploaded it to commons.. I did not replace it then because there was no better option, I requested another one on flickr 2 months ago and then forgot about it because It was a waste of time, came across a good one just 2 days ago and felt that now that we have a better image which is not in "poor taste" like the current one, it can be replaced since there is definitely NO consensus to use the pentagon one..I have been around for a decade now so please I do not need lessons, we already get a discussion every 2 weeks to change Donald Trump's image and this was not at all contentious but you somehow made it into one. I will NOT be changing that image on the turnbull article from now, you can keep that convexy one, I'm not australian so i really do not care..I generally only make one change to an image on any article and if its removed, I ONLY revert it/roll it back only 'once' if the person who removed it does not give a reason why..I'm not in the habit..I gave my reasons, its valid, if you do not accept it, then again, its not really my issue...keep that image, don't bother discussing a change to it, we are unlikely to get a consensus (unless only one vote counts)....--Stemoc 14:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Review

Hello Stemoc I upload a imge File:Odisha CM Naveen Patnaik.JPg. Please review those image.BlueWarrior (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)