Your recent edit to the page Sesame Street appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjones23 Let me explain the reason why sesame street is using the viz video logo. You know the reson why sesame street is using viz video logo because the jim henson video logo discontinued in 1996 because of whatever reason so in 1998 they decided to use the viz video logo for sesame street 1998 vhs videos and dvds but it can also be found in 1 dvd called 123 count with me on dvd so i'm not even putting false information in there so could you please do not revert please?

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot but sometimes i don't have time for it and on a rush. Thats why i have to go so quick.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:208.233.32.44. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>I know you don't but they gotta stop that.Could you tell them to stop please?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Waltdisneyclassics1989logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Waltdisneyclassics1988logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Suspicious image uploads. Regards, —Graham87 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:M11 bg02.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:K12 miu1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 15:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the person who was handling the images that you recently uploaded under fair-use guidelines. The reason your images were deleted was because they did not meet the size guideline, which are as follows:

Pictures must comply with the guidelines laid down at WP:NFCC. Some general rules of thumb:

• Raster images should generally be around 0.1 megapixels.
• The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px.
• The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article.

Following these guidelines will ensure your future fair-use pics are elligible to be retained on this wiki. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lamborghini Gallardo. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding that image back in, please. It's clear that you, or this other person of Flikr, took an existing image from the Internet (probably from here) and painted over it with Photopshop (or MS Paint, whatever). The evidence is clear: the reflection doesn't match (on the original I linked to it does), the lines are jagged (but just on the yellow), there is no glare from the light source, there are no shadows, and the yellow is exactly the same throughout on the paint job. Even if somehow this all wasn't done on a computer, for all the reason stated here it looks terrible and shouldn't be in the article. If you're so concerned with not being blocked then please stop adding this image back into the article. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

HappyLogolover2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

71.94.172.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

[[WP:Edit war|Edit-warring]] on [[Lamborghini Gallardo]]

• Blocking administrator: Coffee (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lamborghini Gallardo. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic Heroes - Team Dark.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Courcelles 05:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frog. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't threaten other users; instead, go to the article talk page and discuss your edits there. For the records, the images you are trying to add to the page are completely out of place, as this is an article about real frogs. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that article is about real frogs? If it is then where could i put those frog images then?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Duh - yes, it's about real frogs. There are articles like Frogs in popular culture and List of fictional frogs and toads, but you probably shouldn't add them to these pages, either. (The first one already has public domain images, and the second one probably doesn't need any.) These are unfree coprighted images, and their use on Wikipedia is highly restricted by the policies - a screenshot of a character is generally acceptable for illustration in an article about the character or a work where he appears, but not just for decorative purposes. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Frogs2.png. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Muppet frogs.png. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jim Henson Video 1993.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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo.jh-homeent.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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SorcererMickey1988.png. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JimHensonVizVideo.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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:4KidsProductionsHenson.png. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Skier Dude with this edit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you, Bentogoa (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing orphaned image tags from non-free images which are not used in any articles. We require that non-free images which are not being used in any articles be deleted in a timely manner, in order to comply with the non-free content policies we have set on this encyclopedia. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by inaccurately removing tags which have been correctly placed, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Viz Media. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Viz Media. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SQGibbon (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HappyLogolover2011,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HappyLogolover2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just want to be unblocked because i'm trying to get them to keep the image in there. HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your efforts in that regard are the precise reason you are blocked. Please see our policy on edit warring before appealing again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for uploading File:Kermit Young.png. 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) 09:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JimHensonVizVideo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NewCIsForCookie.png. 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) 10:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far and away the the most common usage of the term "cervix" is for a part of the female anatomy. If you're going to use a non-standard usage then at the very least you need to provide a wikilink to the definition you have in mind. However, Wikipedia does not have that definition. Both Wiktionary and the OED 2nd ed. do define it as a "neck" but I could find in neither of those sources anything about a pipe you can go through. But even setting that aside, the rest of your edit was not clear. Please don't take offense at this, but your edit was poorly written. I tried to figure out what you were attempting to say in order to maybe rewrite it into something more clear but was unable to. If you think this contribution needs to be part of the article then I suggest using standard vocabulary and working on your prose till you get something that the average person will understand with little to no effort. SQGibbon (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what that cervix means but thats not the cervix what i was talking about. I was talking about the pipe cervix which is a pipe that leads to something or whatever.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to File:Planet51movieposter.jpg, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not upload large non-free images and do not revert to such uploads. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Walt Disney Classics 1992.ogg. 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. Eeekster (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Walt Disney Classics 1989.ogg. 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. Eeekster (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Walt Disney Classics.ogg. 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. Eeekster (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Buena Vista Television 1997 90's comets.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I know what spam is. The question is, is that reason listed in any source as a reason for expulsion? I'm sure there are hundreds of criminal offenses which could lead to the expulsion of a student but that's not the issue. What is the issue is if "spamming" was mentioned specifically in the Improving Behavior And Attendance: Guidance On Exclusion From Schools and Pupil Referral Units publication? I don't have access to that source but I seriously doubt it mentions something as random as spamming. If you do have access to it and claim that "spamming" is mentioned specifically as a reason for expulsion then that would be fine, otherwise it doesn't belong. SQGibbon (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just reverted the page move you did of renaming the Play-Doh article "Doh-Doh". According to your edit summary you claim that "Doh doh is what brand that makes play doh". I could not find anything to support that claim and the article itself does not mention this at all (it mentions Hasbro and Kutol Products but not "Doh-doh"). But even if Doh-Doh did make the product it wouldn't matter. The article is about the product "Play-Doh" and not its manufacturer therefore the name of the article should be "Play-Doh". Finally, WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the most common name which is clearly "Play-Doh". No one would ever think to type "Doh-Doh" into the Wikipedia search box in order to find Play-Doh. If you have any questions or comments you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that Fraggles are fictional creatures, right? There is no such thing as a Fraggle in the real world. They are not agricultural pests as you claim. Please stop adding clearly incorrect information to Wikipedia. Doing so is disruptive and will lead to you being blocked from editing. Given your previous block history, the next one could be for a substantial length of time. Sparthorse (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, fraggles are not real. They are the fictional creatures created by Jim Henson. Your edits here and at wiktionary are clearly disruptive. Please stop adding false information to Wikipedia. Once again fraggles are not real. Sparthorse (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they are a cartoon.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you did add deliberately false information to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Don't do that again, its clearly vandalism. Do that again and you will very likely be blocked once more. Sparthorse (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:New kermit.png. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Fawful, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Waltdisneymasterpiececollectionlogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Darkness Fire.jpg, which you've sourced to http://s642.photobucket.com/albums/uu141/fiamayta/Megan/?action=view&current=7-violet-purple-flames-tm-1-500.jpg&sort=ascending. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing more than a vague similarity but even if they looked exactly the same stating that something is "fraggle-ish" is not very encyclopedic as most readers won't be able to easily make that connection. Also, without a reliable, secondary source making that comparison your claim comes across as original research (read about that here). Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the description is fine as it is, plus there's a picture of them in the infobox. SQGibbon (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Vagina, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 11:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know but thats what of happend on some shows.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Shark Tale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to upload media files with false or lacking copyright and source information, as you did at File:Los Alamos California.png, you may be blocked from editing. Please make sure you have read and understood our image use policy before making any further uploads. If you have questions, ask at the copyright question page. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GO FUCK YOUR WIKIPEDIA SHIT AND GET THE DISRUPTIVE BLOCKING THING OUT!HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Profanity. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk: Seattle are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.--ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Muppet eye has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

wikipedia is not a dictionary. What is there to say about muppet eyes other than that they are muppet's eyes.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JDDJS (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing of various kinds, with no evidence of any attempt to attempt to edit by consensus. You have received a couple of shorter blocks, which have had no apparent effect. I hope that, when the block expires, you can start to edit collaboratively, as otherwise it will be likely to appear that you will never change your ways, in which case you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sunglasses with Metal squares.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1edExJD5HQ. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible for character designs to be recycled from series to another but without a reliable source indicating that this happened with the Daphne design then it is original research. SQGibbon (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The None Giygas Mugen.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trojan Suspended Fake MSEA.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trojan Suspended Fake MSEA.png. 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. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that you have been taking part in the Whatnot deletion-prevention. Originally, I had started the Whatnot (Muppet) link to have a page for the Whatnots since they already have a page for the Anything Muppets. Perhaps the Whatnot (Muppet) page should've been separated from the other type of Whatnot that would be in the category of stock characters. Yet when it came to you helping out on The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth, the anonymous contributer I have been clashing with had been making claims that some of it's characters appeared in Muppet projects yet I haven't seen them in any and the contributer wasn't specific on any of them (though some of the puppets did appear in Greg the Bunny). Kevin Carlson even confirmed on Facebook's Timmy the Tooth fan page under one of the picture comments that the show isn't a Muppet project back when The Jim Henson Company hasn't sold the Muppet rights to Disney. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:50, February 3 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Digifan23. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Digifan23 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have full protected The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth due to an ongoing edit war, that you appear to be involved in. Please discuss the changes on the article talk page so that a consensus can be formed, and don't resume edit warring them in once the protection expires. If you can't quickly resolve the content dispute through the discussion on the article talk page, follow the dispute resolution process. Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HappyLogolover2011

This message is to inform you that your changes to Microsoft Security Essentials article is reverted, owning to very bad grammar and non-English constructs, such as "alert rogue appeared", "is feasibly to install", "program's malware", "with the detected items as", etc. Some of your statements also failed verification.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Whatnot (Muppet). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of Donkey Kong enemies, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Whatnot (Muppet). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "...Not everything has to have those things [citations] unless it's available". This is completely wrong and contrary to everything that is Wikipedia. If you really think this is how Wikipedia operates then you need to read WP:COMPETENT and seriously reconsider if you should be contributing to the project. One of the 5 Pillars upon which Wikipedia operates states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." It cannot be made any clearer than that. Do not keep adding that such'n'such a character is a "recycled" version of another character from a different show unless you provide a citation from an independent reliable source for that claim. What you are doing is the exact definition of original research which is against Wikipedia policy. SQGibbon (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AVG Technologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social engineering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had gotten the notification about your revert on the Whatnot page and I would like to remind you that The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth is not one of the projects of The Muppets or The Jim Henson Company. That's why I removed the characters from the show that I just mentioned. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:28, June 24 2013 (UTC)

The only thing Bubbles and Annette were recycled for was for Kevin Carlson's "Puppet Greetings" cards alongside a generic orange creature that was used for various roles in The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth. I didn't see any of them in either of the Muppet projects (especially since the official trailer for Muppets Most Wanted hasn't come out yet). Do you even have official proof somewhere to support the fact that Kevin Carlson allowed their puppets to appear in the production of The Muppets and The Jim Henson Company? Rtkat3 (talk) 5:53, June 24 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of Regular Show characters. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at List of Fraggle Rock characters, you may be blocked from editing. SQGibbon (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:UA 1995 DVD.png. 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) 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not upload subpar pictures to replace perfectly fine pictures, as you did with Dolphin SSB Brawl 720p.png (A picture meant to show off Dolphin's high-resolution capabilities for a low-res pic?), SSBB Gameplay.jpg (Meant to give a clear shot of gameplay, not an off-angle action shot), and SpecialMelee.jpg (Meant to show off special Melee and gameplay in general, your version did not do as well of a job of conveying that). There is no Wikipedia rule against what you did but be sure to keep the picture's purpose in mind, and be mindful of quality. Thanks, TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:VertMin43.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:VertMin1610.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:VertMin169.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stretch1610.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stretch43.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Field of view in video games, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Giygas isn't really an alien"? Who says? Nintendo themselves say that Giygas is an alien. Do you have a source for any of the claims you're making? And that website you linked is not a reliable source by any means. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on uploading lower quality, glitchy pictures? I understand that you want to upload something higher quality and I agree that the SSBM picture could use some replacing. Normally I would leave your uploads alone. However, glitchy hacks aren't an improvement. Constantly reverting me won't do much, you should know that edit warring isn't exactly how things are supposed to be done around here. So let's discuss. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. WANI (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Adobe Photoshop, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. SQGibbon (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that that website is licensed to provide free downloads of Adobe products or that Adobe has licensed that software to be distributed in that manner? SQGibbon (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but the programmers of course created the portable programs because these cost money and some people can't get the software as it is expensive.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no evidence then that you did not link to pirated copies of Adobe products. SQGibbon (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't link to pirated Adobe products, those are just portable programs. Pirated copies have plenty of bugs in their software which can make the software crash on certain features. The portable ones are registered and all of the features work fine.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These programs are still being offered for free, against Adobe's EULA and likely against their Terms of Use. If they were open source, it would be a different story, but something like Photoshop is almost never offered for free, and if it was, it would be by Adobe, not on some random website. GSK ✉ ✓ 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it wasn't almost never offered for free, they cost money to get the copy with the given serial number to remove the 30 day trial limitations. Plus, those softwares come from Adobe and the other people coded the portable version in a certain site besides Adobe. Adobe doesn't give away portable programs like anyone else does to their trial programs so that they become free without actually having to install the program by Adobe. Some people add serial keys into the text documents as they submit the program with the serial that's designed to crack Adobe programs using the serial so that they don't have to purchase them. Purchasing them can lead to a waste of money and the portable Adobe programs is what we need in-order to preserve our money for something else like bills. Therefore, portable Adobe programs and using their cracks are ways to keep using the programs for life instead of expiring after 30 days.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you linked to cracked Adobe software. That is a violation of the policy I linked to in the warning above. Nothing else matters with respect to Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that also a violation of Adobe's terms of use?HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not then you should be able to provide evidence that this is the case. Show us the license that permits that website to offer a free download of that software. If you cannot provide such a license then the only conclusion available is that you have linked to software in violation of the Wikipedia policy concerning linking to copyright violations. SQGibbon (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Adobe staff don't mind if they have portable versions somewhere else. If they mind, then they send an anti-piracy notice to their websites and notify the law that it was hosted in portable without their consent.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that oblivious? Oh look. It is actually illegal. Unless it was released officially by Adobe, it's unauthorized and therefore against the EULA. If it was open source, it's a different story, but Photoshop is not open source. GSK ✉ ✓ 06:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get you're idea. Even if they say that the portables are illegal and piracy, they portablized the software in many tricks in-order for use to easily get full-versions without actually buying the software. It was nice of them to make portables so that we can take them anywhere we want without buying the software. Though buying it is the only legal way to do it, but there's certain reasons to use portables if needed. If you have them in your computer, just don't use the portables anywhere but your home once you downloaded it into your computer.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care if you use it, but linking to sites where software like that can be obtained is a copyright violation, and simply put, if you continue to add those types of links to articles, you may be blocked. GSK ✉ ✓ 08:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or one of his arms could have been smashed, or he could have lost an eye, or an ear, or both. In short there were all sorts of outcomes that could have happened and because they were not discussed in the film do not need to be mentioned. Also, just because something is true does not mean it has to be in Wikipedia especially if it does not help the reader in any manner but instead makes the text less easy to read. Also, you addition of "Luckily" is your own commentary and does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. Also, your observation is obvious -- of course he did not die and have his organs squashed since his story continues. Again, there was nothing useful about your edit and if anything was a distraction to other readers. SQGibbon (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But readers needed to know why that frog didn't get completely smashed by the tire upon the rest of the story. If that Luckily is my commentary, then which sentence to that plot should be good for that article?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Muppets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minion (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) 08:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Repeated low-quality editing. The thread is User:HappyLogolover2011. Thank you.

After looking at your long edit history and talk page riddled with warnings, I feel like I have no choice but to elevate this to Administrator's Noticeboard.

Turdas (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel this report is unjustified, I suggest you familiarise yourself with. eg. WP:COMPETENT and WP:NOR. You have been warned about this before, and have also been blocked for original research in the past. "I noticed that Sharpie actually made those colors last year" is original research, since you did not provide any citable source for this information and also admitted that you noticed it yourself. Also, in the context of those colours, the source doesn't mean "Everyone ever who has used this colour somewhere", it means "Sources that can provide the RGB values for these colours". Turdas (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If these are original research and shouldn't be here, where should I put these facts on the internet other than Wikipedia if this site does not allow research and wants us to reveal where those come from before adding these stuff?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start your own blog and you can put whatever you want on it. Go to http://www.blogspot.com or http://www.tumblr.com and just sign up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sitting Ducks (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. Diff: [1] There is no sourced prose in the article to support your claim that the character Aldo is related in any way to characters from Donkey Kong. If you are attempting to draw a comparison based on your personal interpretation, that is original research, which you have been warned numerous times to stop adding. Given your history of disruptive editing, I am interpreting this addition as vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Recycled character has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not have a single source and nothing toward establishing notability. Likely is bases on the observations of the author of the article or at least original research.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SQGibbon (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption, most recently here and here, as you did at Kermit's Swamp Years. 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 ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HappyLogolover2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A user has false reported me as a Caidin-Johnson sockpuppet account when he first created an account in 2014 while mine was only made 3 years ago and I have good edits. I've never made major vandalism nor made Caidin-Johnson accounts. If you use the checkuser, then you'll notice Caidin-Johnson isn't listed on my created accounts on my IP of which the user has accused me as a sockpuppet. As for the Kermit's Swamp Years article, the plot detail I added was correct.

Decline reason:

The vandalism is obvious and sufficient. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tacking onto Jpgordon's note: You'll notice that the link to Caidin-Johnson was withdrawn hours before your unblock request. Your edits have been persistently disruptive over the years from the original research submitted here to the completely unencyclopedic Kermit's Swamp Years nonsense you added here, which you resubmitted without appropriate discussion here. And then there's the fact that you submitted the same disruptive nonsense in March 2014, which you were told was an absurd addition, and which you poorly defended with an incoherent response. This is an encyclopedia, not a daycare, and content needs to be presented in a professional manner. The content you've added is trolling at best, and incompetence at worst. Don't forget this absurd talk page post that is clearly based on a satirical Onion video. There's no indication that your primary objective at Wikipedia is to contribute constructively. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Buena Vista Television Logo.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:M.U.G.E.N Customized.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Buena Vista Television Logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]