Greetings. I was brought to your attention by your most recent edit to Let's Make a Deal, which had an edit summary which didn't make sense for the article.

Based on several threads I've seen in edit summaries and talk page discussion, I'd like to ask that you read the following articles fully, with consideration to others that you work with on articles day-to-day. They represent Wikipedia policy.

• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Etiquette
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

I'm speaking specifically of edit summaries with things like: "(This) is assumed as the grand prize, you idiot. Please keep your hands off any future article." "Mike O Malley being considered as host isn't true at all...unless someone out there can prove it. Quit posting your inane wishes." "Cleaned up to look halfway decent. "TV" removed, as that is assumed. Titles removed, this information is redundant. Grammar cleanup. Who the hell wrote this crap before?"

...the addition on a user's talk page of: If he doesn't want any harsh comments, he'll stop posting inaccurate information. This isn't fu**ing preschool, where we have to be "nice" to each other. However, if y'all want inaccurate stuff posted here...so be it.

It is completely reasonable for a person to ask that they not receive personal attacks on their talk page, or have the expectation that content there will not be edited for the purposes of a personal attack (the policies above outline this).

These examples mentioned, I strongly suggest reading the policy articles I linked to above. I believe you'll find that being "nice" is synonymous with being "civil", and some of the edits and behaviourisms you've exhibited could be construed as personal attacks, and/or non-civil behaviour. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Skybunny 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very fine and nice. Not the topic at hand. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was supposed to be an informational source, not one for opinions. If someone wants to post opinions, they can start an LJ. As for the LMAD article, I'll apologize. I was trying to revert all of his edits, and I inadvertently clicked on the one used for a "Grand Game" article. Now, if you'd rather have falsehoods and mistruths posted, that's fine, but you'll lose the respectable posters who actually know what the hell they're talking about. Modor

--Which do not include you. Straighten up. ----ChrisP2K5 (Who was too cowardly to sign his name. Dumbass.)

Mark, quit changing the damn Bonus Game page. It's not wrong, and considering that you don't even like the show, I can't understand why you've suddenly become obsessed with this. Let it go.

And yes, I'm a TPIR fanboy. You make it sound like that's a bad thing. -TPIRFanSteve 12:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) So, Wikipedia is PC too, huh?[reply]

The company is not notable if they do not have a wiki entry. I suggest trying to create a good entry on them, and then create a link for them on the page they were deleted from. If a company or person is "notable" even for an area, they should be on the wikipedia. Also, make sure that you sign your posts when you make comments.--Kranar drogin 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:100 0122.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC) —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the edit summary was offensive, you put a page back up with blatantly false information. It would have been better if you would have checked the edit out first. Modor 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Modor[reply]

Sure, it would have been better. However, as of late, the time I can spend on Wikipedia has been limited; I have to settle for doing what I can. In this case, an anonymous editor made a mass-delete without citation for verification. More importantly, they violated a core policy while at it — NPA is not negotiable. In my book, that made the edit sufficiently suspicious to warrant being reverted. It could always be deleted again (indeed, it has). Regards. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Crocodile Dentist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Crocodile Dentist. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Crocodile Dentist, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocodile Dentist. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the talk archive for The Price Is Right (U.S.), #1. There was a discussion about acceptable sources for Price-related articles. Among the acceptable sources include TPIR.tv and G-R.net. One source was deemed to be unacceptable - a user here on wikipedia used to be a G-T staffer.

--72.207.244.139 (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for this? I've been looking at newspaper archives for an hour or so, and I can't find anything. I won't revert you because it's not wrong, but since it's a Featured article, we have to cite facts like that. –Fredddie™ 03:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple links, both are from a newspaper: http://www.tamatoledonews.com/page/content.detail/id/504223/Bypass-Part-II-opens-Wednesday.html?nav=5006 http://www.timesrepublican.com/page/content.detail/id/535574/Highway-30-now-completely-open-between-State-Center-and-Colo.html?nav=5005 Cheers! 04:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Modor

Nice, but both of those are from 2010. This opened in 2011. –Fredddie™ 02:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a press release from 2011 from the DOT for the State Center to Iowa 330: http://www.news.iowadot.gov/newsandinfo/2011/07/westbound-lanes-of-us-30-near-state-center-to-open-tomorrow.html Modor (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Modor[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mil05pic12.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]