Archives

1, 2

Doc, great series of edits on The Beatles article, it is greatly improved due to your efforts. I had a question about this edit however, specifically, changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles" when the source Wiki is quoting (Harry, 2002, p.753) uses "the Beatles". Shouldn't we be accurate to the source, or brackets should be used to indicate we are changing the case of the "t"? Please, correct me if I am wrong.

P.S., If I have an en dash on my keboard where would it be? Thanks, cheers! — GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc, for the speedy reply, and the advice on finding the en dash. I will defer to you and Tony in this instance, it does make logical sense to me. Thanks for your time, cheers! — GabeMc (talk)

Hi. I've restored the most important parts of what I'd done to Elvis Presley. I'd seen the discussion at TFA/R and should point out to you that Sandy doesn't know what she's talking about. I scrunched the whitespace as a sop to poor ways of thinking about article load time and edibility. The result was 'smaller'. Alarbus (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc, hope you are having a great holiday season. I have a question I think you can answer. I bought a first edition copy of: The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, so I could replace the pageless Sheff 1981 cites in the John Lennon article, as the link appears to be dead now anyway. Here's the question, the book is actually copyrighted to Playboy, not Sheff, and the Library of Congress page at the front of the book actually lists Lennon as the 1st author. Further, while Sheff conducted the interviews, the book was edited by G. Berry Golson. So how should this be cited to, since the interviews were conducted by Sheff, the book was edited by Golson and authored by Lennon? Also, if Lennon is an author, why would Yoko not also be an author?

As of now, the ref section reads like this: Sheff, David; Lennon, John; Ono, Yoko. In: Golson, G. Berry. The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Playboy; 1981. ISBN 978-0-87223-705-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. But as I said, this does not seem to be accurate. How should the cites look? Thanks, Happy New Year, cheers! — GabeMc (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not whining, despite what you may think. It is valid to complain about reverting an entire edit when there are some improvements in it. It may not be your intention, but you are coming off to me as "snotty" right now. I am sorry if this is not your intent, but I would appreciate it if you spoke to me kindly, because all you want to do is complain about me and/or my edits... --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Well done sir! You have had quite a day for the Presley TFA! Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you insist that both NYC and LA images have the same aspect size (which I think is unwarranted for the simple reason that the NYC skyline is so much bigger and more sprawling), then will you please replace the current NYC image with something more visually appealing? I am quite unhappy that you are insisting or even just OK with leaving a poor quality image for NYC while the L.A. image is appropriately beautiful, just on the basis of an illogical size consideration. I believe that my choice actually made sense. And kindly change the moniker back to New York "City" from "New York", whose primary Wikilink is actually to the New York State article. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been opened and can be found at WP:Requests for comment/DocKino Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, DocKino. I will have a read over it this evening. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. Keep up the good work! Blake Burba (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary is downright sleek--nice job. Blake Burba (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No hyphen between "pneumatically" and "powered"? (just a query--I defer to your judgment...) Blake Burba (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything you need to finish the Jaws copyedit before I nominate it for the FA again? igordebraga ≠ 21:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Lots of credit for getting your hands dirty on the Jaws article. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot for all your help! Is the Legacy section the only part remaining? (was willing to nominate it later today, Dec 30...) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did most of the latest comments, can you take a look to see what else can be done? igordebraga ≠ 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't undo something with adequate references just because you disagree with it. The truth is truth as sad as it is... and I would at the very least like more of an explanation then "misguided". I would like to avoid some crazy edit war so lets talk. You show me yours and I'll show you mine, figuratively speaking of course ;) Cloudblazer (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should really be a puppy option too.

Cadiomals (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive: {{Puppy}}! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert good faith photo addition. The narrative is in the middle of his life here--a memorial is out of place. - Hi Kal, it means exactly the middle of his life - look at the Foto: 1958 - 1960 - and with the Ray Barracks in Friedberg exactly a station of his life. :)--Neptuul (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DocKino. You have new messages at Mmyers1976's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For all your work in Jaws (film), which now reads better than ever! You may even add yourself as a co-nominator if you want so! igordebraga ≠ 01:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dockino,

Re your comment in reverting edits on the Ramones page as follows:-

'Revert. Sorry, but we are not allowing the Influence section to be turned into a sloppy trivia bank.'

Some comments:-

1) When you say we, could you please clarify who it is that you are speaking for on top of yourself? I don't see on there that anyone has stated that they are giving you authority to speak for them

2) Please bear in mind that wikipedia guidlelines state that wikpedia pages are not owned by individuals. Thus you do not own the Ramones page. Agreement on edits on pages in wikipedia are based on consensus rather than one person looking to steamroller there views when there are others making up a majority alternative opinion. There are others who agree that the influence sections needs a tidy up. The tidied up edit I have added is more structured as opposed to the previous version which has no apparent line of structure and just looks amateur and messy.

3) Please refrain from edit warring. As mentioned above, individuals do not own wikipedia pages. Please work with others in a constructive manner rather than edit warring with abrupt, point of view comments that often give no indication of any wikipedia guidelines supporting the view point.

Thank you for any constructive and consensusly agreed work you can bring to wikipedia.

Socheid (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dockino,

This is an attempt at humour on your part surely? The only person who has objected to this change is you. As well as me, there is another person if you go through the hist who has agreed that this section of this page needs to be improved.

The reasons you have given for reverting these edits have been only your point of view and there has been no wikepedia guidelines brought to the table to support your view. At the moment this appears that you think that you own this page and have the right do on here as you wish. Wikipedia states that individuals do not own pages. The reasons put forward by you against the edits I made are poor. The reponse you have given above appears aloof, self important and does not demonstrate any sort of desire or inclination to try to work together with others.

Again, please do not edit war. Socheid (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please see the update above by IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC), stating that the influences section needs a tidy up.

Hi Dockino,

Interesting reply. So let me get this right. If someone makes an edit, its OK for you to undo it. If someone else undoes your edits, its edit warring?

You may well have some stars added to your history. You also have on there a list of complaints regarding your uncollaborative and dogmatic challenging of other people's work. Further your response above supports the previous comment I added above, namely that your edits are self important and aloof and not geared towards collaborative working. To repeat again, wikipedia guidelines state that no one owns wikipedia pages. You are the only person who has challenged this edit so far despite it being on almost 200 watch lists. Further to repeat again, there has been a comment stating that the influences section needs a tidy up. This means that at present your view is against the consensus so far stated.

I have asked you before and this has been ignored. Please let me ask again. Can you please explain with detail why exactly the edits made are non beneficial? You clearly have a high regard for your abilities, could you please demonstrate how good they are by giving a detailed explanation of why the edit in question is devalueing the section in the article? As stated above, the only change that has been made is to break the content down into three structured sub sections. All of the content and references are exactly as before. However the proposed changes takes away the rambling non structured format, to some degree at least. Regardless of how many stars you have or anything else, you do have any higher authority to allow you to over ride the opinions of others when your view is the minority opinion. Do you honestly believe that you are perfect and nothing you do can be improved upon?

Also could you please explain why my actions have nothing to do with the input of illazilla? Illazilla made a constructive suggestion that one of the sub sections was too small. I have acted upon that and merged a couple of sections together. Its called collaborative working.

Could you please answer the previous question I also asked, namely when you said 'we' in one of your previous talk page updates, who are you speaking for please?

Your repeated undoing of the changes I have attempted to constructively apply with what is currently majority backing represents edit warring on your part.

Socheid (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent quite a while looking through the comments at your RfC/U, and the diffs, and so on, and as I've never interacted with you personally (and also as I just think it's better) I've decided to talk to you here rather than leave or endorse any comments over there. I hope that's OK with you.

I can easily understand the problems that Real Life can cause us, and how it can spill over into WikiLand despite our best intentions. I've found the reverse to be true, as well: WikiStress can affect our ability to deal at our best in Real Life. It can get to be a vicious circle, sometimes. I personally have some health issues (waiting for surgery) which mean I'm in almost constant pain (and regular morphine!) neither of which is really conducive to maintaining a good mood or really thoughtful editing. I'm also full-time carer for a frail, elderly parent with advanced dementia. So, I really do understand what Real Life issues can do to us. I had a really nasty spat on Wikpedia back in December, which I found quite horribly stressful (I almost quit altogether), so I can also appreciate the stress of having the RfC/U going on. You have my sympathy, on both fronts. I'm also an HFA, which can occasionally complicate matters; My interactions with other people don't always go the way I expected!

I wrote an essay on civility, from my own experiences, which I think you might possibly find helpful to read. (Of course, I could be wrong.) You're possibly sick and tired of people talking to you about this subject, but please be assured that my intentions are good, and I mean you nothing but good. I apologise in advance if I'm out of line here; I just thought that maybe a few words from a completely uninvolved editor might help the situation. All the best, Pesky (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

 I thought you might be somewhat interested in this 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've started the clock on closing the RfC/U about you. There is a request that you respond to one point, but that will not hold it from closing. Thanks, Hasteur (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DocKino. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 13:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at least give it a chance? I really think it makes more sense and flows/reads better. — GabeMc (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Can you at least give me some reasons why you disagree? I'm sure we could find a middle ground. — GabeMc (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally comment on people's edit summaries but I did enjoy the one that accompanied this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you had a great wiki holiday but its good to have you back Doc! I had a couple of questions about your recent series of edits at the Beatles.

1) Here: I changed this because in the OS, there are no spaces between the words and the dash, can we alter the punctuation of the OS without a [sic]? I see now, you fixed the error not caused it here, sorry. — GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) As far as this quote swap: a) Lewisohn is a better source than Norman, who is a better source than Gladwell, b) the Lewisohn quote is more succint, c) we need to add back Gladwell as a source, as I removed the lower-quality sources used for only a cite or two in the article in favor of the more common and higher quality ones used through out. This trimming of obscure, sometimes out-of-print lower quality sources helped me reduce the overall size of the article by more than 13%. Thus, the article is more easily verified by the average editor/reader now that these older, hard to find, lower-quality sources are not relied upon to source basic information the high-quality sources already address, d) there is already a topical article on this subject, so the detail need not be more than the shorter Lewisohn quote IMO.

3) Here I agree with trimming the "bus incident" details, there is a topical article dedicated to this era as you pointed out, but as far as changing "the" to "The" in the name chronology, well, I am not aware of any consensus to override our sources, and Lewisohn uses "the" throughout.

4) a) You can't do this much in one edit, b) I think you need to build a consensus for this diff anyway, as no one else disliked the edited version as it was TMK, which was better sourced, more succinct and more accurate, c) you introduced numerous errors, you would need to add back the many obscure, out-of-print, and poor quality sources, and d) you can't use rollback for anything but vandalism, and that's essentially what this diff is, a rollback. — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5) Here, why is an Academy Award not notable enough for the lead when grammys and Ivors are? To a US citizen an Oscar is better than five grammys at least, if not ten. I added it back. — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having imposed a ban on myself having anything to do with Wikipedia for several months, largely for the good of my health, I've only just seen your request regarding the RfC back in January. Please don't think I ignored this. I am pleased that there have been such positive comments about your edits and I would surely have added to them. Wikipedia is definitely a finer place for you being a part of it. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the time, I sure could use some help with the prose. Paul McCartney FAC. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc! I don't have the eye for prose that you do, so your help would be greatly appreciated! — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you saw the responses on my talk page, but really, just edit it the best you know how. I'm sure if there is anything I disagree with we can either talk about it, or I'll just change it back, lol. Don't worry, I trust your editorial instincts and I know the article could use your skills. I do disagree with your page range edits at The Beatles though, my reasoning is that to save one digit, you introduce much more room for error. 191-195 is clear, but 191-95 could be an error for 195, 95; or 195, 295, etectera. Just my opinion. — GabeMc (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time, I think your input would be helpful here. — GabeMc (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You're right but I'd too trigger happy for my own good sometimes. Britmax (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — GabeMc (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Beatles". Thank you. — GabeMc (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DocKino. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DocKino, i received this notice on my talkpage at Wikimedia Commons. Seeing as you uploaded the picture, i though you ought to know. benzband (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last revert which you have made on Elvis Presley's page, i think i agree but, still such name should be added somewhere on the page, like they have been added on the pages of Stevie Wonder, Little Richard, Michael Jackson and so on, people go ask on internet "Who Elvis has influenced except beatles, dylan" as we have put only such influences on Elvis's page. That's what the point is. Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc. I just wanted to let you know that there is a discussion here to which you may be interested in contributing. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DocKino. I closed the DRN thread about The Beatles which you were involved in, because it was inactive for almost two weeks. If you want to carry on with dispute resolution after you come back to editing, just leave a note on my talk page and I'll reopen the dispute resolution thread for you. (Or you could just file a new case, or un-archive the old case, if you prefer - it's up to you.) You are very much encouraged to use the noticeboard again if you think it would help. And if you have any questions about any of this, just ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently made a change to Elvis Presley that I think I should run by you, being one of the article's main contributors, here. I made the edit before proposing it b/c I thought showing it would get my proposal across better. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image I added to Jaws after your suggestion is on a deletion discussion, can you offer an insight? igordebraga ≠ 04:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Tender Mercies know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 19, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Tender Mercies is a 1983 American drama film. Robert Duvall plays Mac Sledge, a recovering alcoholic country music singer who seeks to turn his life around through his relationship with a young widow and her son in rural Texas. Duvall, who sang his own songs in the film, drove more than 600 miles (966 km) throughout the state, tape recording local accents and playing in country music bands to prepare for the role. He and director Bruce Beresford repeatedly clashed during production, at one point prompting Beresford to walk off the set and reportedly consider quitting. Themes include the importance of love and family, the possibility of spiritual resurrection amid death, and the concept of redemption through Mac Sledge's conversion to Christianity. Following poor test screening results, distributor Universal Pictures made little effort to publicize Tender Mercies, which Duvall attributed to the studio's lack of understanding of country music. Although unsuccessful at the box office, it was critically acclaimed and earned five Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Picture. Tender Mercies won Oscars for Best Original Screenplay for Horton Foote and Best Actor for Duvall. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- you gave me good advice a couple of years back, about the placement of images. Can you kind of help mentor me regarding them and other issues? I've uploaded over 2,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, and placed them but there are always new things to learn! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Elvis Presley (estimated annual readership: 4,174,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Elvis Presley to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot I owe you one for this, too:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Jaws (film) to Featured Article status.

Thanks again for all you do!-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC about the use of the {{fairusereview}} tag on mainspace pages is in progress here. From 2005 until recently, this template was added to file pages when the non-free status of the file was being discussed. In May this year it was edited so that it could be added to articles. The RfC question is: "Should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages?"

Since you are a registered member of the Fair Use WikiProject, you might have an interest in this discussion.Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Blue Suede Shoes.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Article. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Harout72 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bonzo Goes To Bitburg.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PistPost8.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sex Pistols for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]