Archive 1

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walt Disney Animation Studios you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbidden User -- Forbidden User (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Walt Disney Animation Studios you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbidden User -- Forbidden User (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, the article needs to go through the good article nomination process before passing or failing good article status. You can not decided whether an article is a good article without a proper nomination by an independent user. Don't do that again. Secret ^account 19:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing, I noticed that most of your edits lied under the scope of WikiProject Film and WikiProject Disney. A WikiProject is a group of contributors that band together to improve coverage of a certain topic or to complete a certain task on Wikipedia. If you are interested, you may add your name to the list of members on the projects' page, and view its to-do-list. I hope you consider it, and welcome to Wikipedia! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 10:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are special tracking systems that they may use, like Nielsen SoundScan for digital singles and albums, etc. The 3,000,000 figure is not stated in the source, but it can easily be inferred from since the song has received the 3x Platinum certification from RIAA (stated officially on its site), and all 3x Platinum-certified single/album must have reached 3,000,000 copies milestone. Feel free to discuss with me. Happy editing! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Forbidden User (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What with the Disney nomination close to archiving, please take my advice and open a peer review for Disney rather than just list it again at FAC. A peer review will iron out all the problems and issues that the article may have and will make life a lot easier at FAC should you (or whoever) choose to re-nominate it. Cassianto^talk 18:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Forbidden User! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You are going to be reverted by the bot. You need to leave a note in the talk page note parameter of the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Forbidden User (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frozen (2013 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prashant! -- Prashant! (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You nominated the article when things haven't been in their places. Now someone decided to review it, so we have to co-orporate very, very hard together to push it to GA rank, OK? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you have the right to do so. And I think that there are quite a few editors who are interested in the film, so they'll give you a hand on this if you need. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of the few links on Thu 22 May I personally felt that iMDB is a pretty reliable site that is often used on articles. I did not do any reverts etc but I do hope you reconsider iMDB as an external link. Thank you! :) Lesmiserables95 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you say so then, although I often see it on wiki links. :) Guess we have some cleaning up to do on that! ;) And yes the flu cough combination is irritating, but thank you for the well wishes. Have a nice day! Lesmiserables95 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for undoing your edits again. I know IMDb (and many other sites) is not reliable, since anyone can edit it, just like this Wikipedia. But we just link to it and say, "OK guys, I give you a number of links for references, but it's your choice how to use it." LOL Anyway, these links are already kind of "templates" for articles about films, so it's best we shouldn't break the accepted rule, OK? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with both versions, considering how each has it's own justification. But Quenhitran has a pretty valid point that this is like a standard template for film articles. Till then, it's been a pleasure. :) Lesmiserables95 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think wikipedia policy/guideline has listed this. So it's fine you add them back. By the way, Lesmiserables95, I think you got the wrong guy? It's unimportant though.Forbidden User (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not actually sure what you mean by the wrong guy... but I'm sure it's not anything too important. :) Lesmiserables95 (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my last reverting. Oops, sorry!

I'm happy that you've expressed your concerns about unreliable sources. And I'd like to discuss a bit about your recent removal. First, as far as I know, Box Office Mojo is a subsidiary of IMDb, both of which were owned by IMDb.com (IMDb.com were purchased by Amazon.com in 2008). Therefore, listing IMDb as "Publisher" and Box Office Mojo as "Work" is possible, and I've seen articles using this way of citation.

And one more thing, about Frozen Free Fall. I was the one who added this piece in the end of December 2013. Gamezebo.com is a professional rating sites that give reviews on newly released games quite regularly - it could be considered a reliable source (The "Reception" section of several articles about games cite Zebo). And in case you worry having two citations constitutes "Citation overkill", then some information included in this piece doesn't only come from Disney Games' Official Site, but also from Gamezebo. Perhaps we should create a separate article about Free Fall some time soon.

I'd like to hear your opinions on these two issues. By the way, you are the most friendly Wikipedia editor I've ever met, of my two-year experience in this community! Feel free to post on my talk page, I'm looking forward to them! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhi, to me it's ok for including the IMDb as publisher, and if Gamezebo.com is professional (I don't know a bit about game sites), it'd be better to keep it. By the way, I hope you could help me in updating the problematic references' no. Thanks! Good luck cleaning those sources!Forbidden User (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try. But I'm sure if any problems with sources occur, the GA reviewer will hardly miss it. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Forbidden User, please keep whatever you like in my recent edit, and revert the rest. I enjoyed reading through the article.

I consider "and by 1930, despite their having sound, cartoons featuring Felix had faded from the screen after failing to gain attention" at the end of Mickey Mouse section to be dubious, if not one-sided. I remember growing up with both Mickey Mouse and Felix the Cat as my idols in the late 1950's, although I watched them on TV and not on theater screens. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100434 is noted as the ref on the part, but is a dead link for me. It is very possible the statement is true, and there was a resurrection of popularity for Felix the Cat on TV in the 1950s. If so, inclusion of such statement would make the article better, and come to think of it, description of the influence of TV on Disney (start of the TV series) in the 1950s may be lacking/insufficient in the article. Yiba (talk | contribs) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yiba, I think the edit is a sensible one, and thank you so much for contributing! I'm checking on the sections you mentioned. Thanks again for your opinion! Good luck editing.Forbidden User (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

One more thing came up in my mind. The expiration of copyrights on early work, like Dumbo, Bambi, etc., is a big deal in the industry as well as for Disney. May be the mention of Mickey Mouse Protection Act is called for (if I didn't miss the mention of it in the article). Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take note. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Um... the expiration occurs way after his death... so I don't think it belongs here. It should be going to Walt Disney Animation Studios, which I'm working on as well. Help appreciated!Forbidden User (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change these as it can be important to know when they were added. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, thanks for noting. Honestly the template is still warranted :( Forbidden User (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. But we should know how long it's been unsourced. Something only template this month, we can wait a while for sources. Several years ago, maybe we should either source or remove any dubious material. So we leave the original date in until the problem is fixed. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

	Exceptional Newcomer Award
	Though you are relatively new, you made Frozen a GA. So congratulations! Kailash29792 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Frozen (2013 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frozen (2013 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prashant! -- Prashant! (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How amazing, excellent job! I wish I had a barnstar too =))) LOL ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 10:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The honor should be yours as well! I am much cheered up now amidst exams! Cheers to you, Quenhitran!Forbidden User (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There's still a lot to do. I intend to push all Frozen articles to GA. I did it with Anna, another editor did for Elsa, and you did for Frozen. My next goal are the film's songs. Hope you can join! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 10:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but as you said, it's kind of normal here. For instance, on Elsa's, today I reverted one and you reverted one, so obviously it can't be counted as persistent vandalism. Anna's is less popular, since I finished pushing it to GA, there haven't been many constructive edits, I had to add it to my watchlist and most of the edits since then are reverts. The thing here is that, although most of the last 50 edits there are vandalism, they happen in quite a long period of time, in a month or so. We can only request protection for pages that are vandalized (six to eight times) in one or two days' time. You may check the revision history of the Frozen article in the days around the Academy Awards ceremony (March 2-March 3), only in such cases may we report. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Quenhitran! I'm curious about PC protection though. It says this protects against 'excessive vandalism' while the edit rate is 'not too high', which sounds self-contradictory to me. Could you explain it?Forbidden User (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Several administrators don't even bother to read all those policies and guidelines, you know. Most of them assume that all protection policies (both PC and semi-protection) are applied as long as vandalism rate is high but in a short period of time. So they decline our requests. I think the only way to solve this is to address the issue directly to them, perhaps by posting a message on their talk pages. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you, good luck editing (instead of always having to revert and report vandals)!Forbidden User (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

:D Yes, it's very tiring. Today I don't revert vandals but continue with the development of Frozen =)) By the way, your edit summary on Let It Go was incorrect, since Chasewc91's last edit was a week ago, his reverting your edits will not constitute 3RR (just saying). Have a nice day ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walt Disney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian (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, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kristoff (Disney) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You should be in touch with Nannah4, he/she seems experienced in this field. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran, he/she sounds a little bit grumpy... I don't know if I can make him explain calmly.Forbidden User (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted a message to WikiProject Songs seeking for help but I don't think anyone will stop by. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's redundant. We use front cover to identify the soundtrack, not the back one. Instead, the back cover will not pass the non-free review. I assume you want to upload the back cover to present all the producers' name? You don't have to do that, just cite the CD names, its ID or whatsoever, like books. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! I guess I'll find reviews on the song to support its notability (which is in the gap between a seperate article and not needing a cover).Forbidden User (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walt Disney you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Walt Disney you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Walt Disney for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tangled, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. With a *few* exceptions which are mostly templates, users may delete what they choose from their own talk page.Naraht (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is not that. I did not revert his removal. The main issue is that he goes on personally attacking me after my apology.Forbidden User (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's a different issue.Naraht (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Is Walt Disney a Republican, or not?

He is, but we need a source, per WP:Verifiability.Forbidden User (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting for one of two major events: the OUAT season premiere (probably late September) or they confirm the musical is actually going into production. Remember, right now, it's in development, they're apparently waiting for the songwriters to finish drafting the additional songs they need. At that point then I think it will be safe to say Frozen has matured as a franchise in its own right (because now it has real spinoff media products, not just merch) and we can sever all that content into a separate article and summarize it in the film article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good day!Forbidden User (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In recognition of your recent useful work on popular culture and entertainment... RomanSpa (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going away for a few days starting tomorrow, and I can't reply swiftly to stuff. Could you help me respond to the reviewer's comments on good article nomination of Evil Queen (Disney)? Thanks, ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran, I will do my best! Hope I can help.Forbidden User (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You've make numerous attacks on me in the RFC and you are violating numerous policies ranging from WP:POLEMIC to WP:NPA and numerous talk page guidelines when you misquote and completely misunderstand a basic argument. This serves as an additional note to the one I made in the RFC - you are using highly inflammatory and creating a hostile WP:BATTLEGROUND while continuing to attack editors. I believe you are being too emotional. At first I believed it was mere ignorance of the terminology and history, but its clear you are not a new Wikipedia editor and your stance cannot be swayed or open to rational debate. The point is to build a conversation and go through the details, and sadly it seems that your only recourse to continue defending unsupported claims is because "other editors said it so it must be true". That is illogical, irrational and just more polemic tactics. You may be doing good work in the article space, but you do not seem capable of forming a positive discussion and the talk page of the RFC is thoroughly evident of your clearly non-new status. So, what's your previous account? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not slamming a newbie tag on me. However, it is my first account. I was only an IP editor who copyedit sparingly. For your WP:NPA accusations, when did I comment on you in person? We can comment on an action or an edit. Please cite my statements that makes you offended. Anyway, this RfC is contentious, and so it is rather better taken as a debate which allows stance change. Before making accusations, please provide evidences as quotes or diffs, so that I can understand why you go that emotional suddenly.Forbidden User (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oy, see you think I'm "emotional" over it, which is not only a gross characterization when you yourself stated as such. This RFC is personal for you and you said about "toning it down", so I suggest you do so because NPA and POLEMIC do not just apply to specific editors, but outside accusations that a specific person should be "preparing for jail" and such. You have grossly characterized the situation and your ignorance of simple things like robots.txt have compounded confusion and greatly lengthened the debate, unnecessarily. If you have closed your mind off and don't accept established terminology - then talking to you is a waste of time. This is my last attempt to try and help you understand what's actually going on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You know what. Do as you please, I got better things to do then argue over basic terminology and how a mundane thing got out of hand. Archive.is doesn't care and Rotlink just used them as a convenient tool. I do content and clean up, but tone the rhetoric back. All the evidence needed to figure out what should, could and can be done is on the table. The who and why was also given long ago. Also, Rotlink is still on Wikipedia. But whatever, purging the bot-additions do nothing now, should have been done 9 months ago. I also gave you the evidence and detailing on what happened and why, which goes against my earlier stance - but new evidence changed my mind. If you really care, and don't want to be lectured - no one wants to be lectured on anything, in a conflict at least - then let me know. Otherwise, have fun and don't get distracted by the content work you do - we need more Disney GAs and FAs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We have no restrictions that one must reply to another. I know about WP:DISENGAGE, and actually I was going to take it off my watchlist, as arguments on both sides were quite exhausted already (we both repeat others somehow, let's forgive ourselves). Are you sure about your emotional state? I saw a sudden increase in exclamation marks and ad hominem. Anyway, you have gone back to normal and rational, which is good. The terminologies (especially Latin ones) are unfamiliar to me, so I did click into it and have a look. I mistook PaleAqua's comment with yours, so sorry for that confusion. For the technical terms, like proxies an botnets, I still cannot figure out why I got involved, perhaps because the discussion sounded too interesting not to join. Anyway, he used an illegitimate way, may it be tweaked AWB, proxies, botnets, or so. WP:POLEMIC is a guideline (not polcy, and a "range" seems to be actually one) for maintaining peace in user talk pages, so I'm looking at WP:NPA. Overall, I suppose you do not think I have make personal attacks on you, and I don't see any elaboration on talk page (non-user) guidelines, so I'm not going to look at it. Wish you victory on your favourite video games.Forbidden User (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's why I don't want to deal with you, its because you have no idea what you are talking about. You attacked and attacked, grossly misconstrued established fact and have a battleground mentality. Even this comment about "victory" is highly inappropriate, and I am warning you for it. Continuing to take my words out of context and outright invert them is inappropriate. If you cannot tell the difference between a guideline and policy when on the subject of editor conduct you are just being disruptive. I don't even care about the end result of the RFC, only that the historical record is accurate and that the truth is known. Even in the face of evidence you repeat unsupported accusations over and over again. Its why the first RFC failed and Rotlink's additions did not get purged. You don't even understand my position - and you don't care that I'm stricter than you when it comes to Rotlink. That's right, you don't understand what needs to be done, and you don't understand what happened. Its why I consider your input invalid and when trying to educate you - you just pounded sand and made a fuss. Its irritating that someone as vocal as you simply doesn't understand what they are even saying. And that's why your attitude is bothering me, because I don't even work in "video games" and your ad hom attack and lies make more work for me than I should have to. It is a waste of my time - I don't care about Archive.is's final conclusion, I just want the community to make the decision with all the facts. And frankly, purging Archive.is doesn't fix the problem, it just covers it up. But whatever, have fun playing into Rotlink's hands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then enjoy yourself in whatever your profession is. WP:POLEMIC, redirected to Wikipedia:User pages, has a "content in a nutshell" about user pages, and a guideline banner. I usually read nutshells. The whole thing seems to be that you think you are the bearer of Truth (look at yourself above), and you can address others as the unthinking mob, or clueless, and that is fact, not personal attacks or ad hom (see your comment about others' "desperation". You know what should be done, and you always understand what others are saying because they don't know the Truth, which is in your hand. You did not violate WP:Harass (telling someone he/she does not know this and that is not, as long as it's in your Truth), WP:NOTBATTLE (it states others vioating it is no reason of you doing it back), or WP:NPA (it is a so-called fact, right? A polite (is it?) reminder is not PA; also, leaving a whole comment solely about another user is not PA) or WP:Etiquette (you're absolutely polite for telling what you know and I don't know in the manner of "Yes, you don't know this, you don't even know that, you don't even know yourself"). Am I using rhetoric? Of course I do. Do I use rhetoric in giving evidence? Less likely. Do I present my reasoning in rhetorics? More often. I suppose you take rhetorics as attacks, so after this post I'm reducing rhetorics to you. Which evidence is against my five argument basis? By evidence I mean something like links to RS. If you mean the security check, I've clarified that I do not think it is blacklisted by companies. Remember WP:POLEMIC applies on user talk pages? You are saying I'm false while you're true, so take care.Forbidden User (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• No - my evidence isn't complete, but certain points were established. My issue is you don't go far enough, hence that is why I know you didn't understand what you were talking about. If you knew what Rotlink did then you would have been in supporting of purging, checkusering and removing the source. We are on the same side, yet you think I am against you. That's why I said what I said. I don't have the whole picture, but Rotlink's task was more nefarious then you give it credit - and for the wrong reasons you cite. Anyways, either way the RFC goes "I win" as you put it. Though for me, its never winning or losing, I do hope the underlying issue is resolved. Its not some Sun Tzu bullshit either - you are dealing with someone who honestly doesn't care about the end result because its just different types of "winning", all possibilities are favorable to me. Just some more favorable than others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm getting it, but it seems you want something more from me — I don't have to, though the majority of your words are constructive to the understanding of the issue. I did not know this RfC's existence before before looking at the bot approval request, so I looked at the RotLink saga and RfC#1 before putting my vote. Not in any way am I in support of archive.is, though I agree that you may disagree with the explanation of Kww. Yes, as put in the talk page of the "talk page", checkusering is the least that should be done, though technology gives easy ways of sneaking past, so much more should be done. The last thing I'd like to say is that if you does not care about the result, it is better to raise your points as comments. I take it as you ceasing your accusation, so I'm ending here.Forbidden User (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You put voting is evil at the beginning, but your opinion is that it should be demoted. Would you mind if I change voting is evil to Demote to clarify your opinion? Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No thank you. A closer is to read all of an editor's comments not just the emboldened part. And as it is now closed, I think the closer read my comments well enough. Thank you for the kind offer though : ) - jc37 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Walt Disney Animation Studios you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For making Walt Disney Animation Studios a GA! Kailash29792 (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The gross threat and false accusation by the one attacking me above, who has failed to defend himself.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you cannot maintain civility I will take you to ANI because you are not only dismissing proven fact, but you are provoking a gross allegation that is unsupported. I will personally take this to an admin because your disruption was already closed once. I am not in any mood to entertain your snide little comments - this is your final warning about it. Next time you make criminal allegations on a Wikipedia user you will be reported. Do I make myself clear? You are not as new as you say you and you know better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC) The first thing to address would be your misuse on templatess. If you talk about "unsupported allegations", you will have to slam this on ~30 editors. I don't remember making criminal allegations as I didn't say it's certainly a botnet, but certainly some illegitimate ways. Archive.is should be aware of the possibly malicious requests of service and block them, put as opinion. You are the only person talking about EU laws, etc. No one other than you makes "fact" claims on legal issues but "concern" claims. It is your "disruption" and my "disruption" getting hatted. Anyway, have you proven anything? A COI statement any three-year-old can make (that is, denial without evidence or reasoning) is no "proof" in your definition. It's quite surprising you dare talking about AN/I — look at your genuine personal attacks and allegations of me being non-new without evidence. Obviously you are throwing your own frustrations on me, feeling like to continue?Forbidden User (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Numerous editors have asked for your disruption to stop, including Nil Einne, you are not allowed to continue making gross allegations of illicit activity of any editor. Your words are lies. Do not make me repeat myself again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Oh, did I make anything wrong? I only took you guys' words to make a little sum-up. The concern exists, so I include it; there are rebuttals, so I include it. Whether the concerns are likely and justified should be determined by everyone looking through the drama, not you. I'd suggest you to stop removing others' comments. The closer will disregard it if he/she thinks that it is not a good argument. Perhaps you love wordplay — Nil never commented my edits as "disruption". By the way, you are admitting that you're just saying WP:YOUREWRONG now? I know you'd deny it — what a strange claim. I'd say vacation is more suitable for you.Forbidden User (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Just to remind you, WP:POLEMIC applies to user pages.Forbidden User (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC) You are not a new user and you are not a three month old user either. Keep up the disruption though. It fools no one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Back your claim on me with evidence. People will disregard my comments if they think they're not useful. There's no need for you to be the big brother, censoring all "disruptive materials".Forbidden User (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, where's your "admin"? There is no need to be scared of whatever sanctions we shall face. I personally asked Mdann for his opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A funny quote would be "Your words are lies." For the fact that only people running out of sensible points say so—desperation in its nakest form. Vacation is more suitable than Wikipedia for you, which is not a place for cyberbullying. Get it?Forbidden User (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Walt Disney Animation Studios you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of socking and do not draw attention to the revealing of the personal information - instead promptly and quietly report it to oversight so it can be removed from the record. You are not new to Wikipedia, but I doubt you understand the policies and procedures. The information has now been suppressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought he didn't check through the !votes, not to socking or sort. Didn't you notice the IP's similarity with the others'? I only guessed that he had the bad habit of forgetting to log in. I understand policies to the normal extent of a 3-month-old Wikipedian, though I really don't know the procedures. Anyway, it's good that you voluntarily do that much work on that issue!Forbidden User (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit which revealed the information was filled in by the user in 2 minutes - the IPs are different though. If you ended up revealing your personal IP by mistake, I'd still request suppression because it reveals your location and other information. This happens sometimes at ANI and other places, but I'm not really familiar with the whole process either... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Voting with multiple accounts without disclosure is socking. If anyone seeing this finds out that you've unintentionally dup voted, just strike one and make a short explanation, and/or replace your IP with your signature (~~~~). It won't be considered socking.Forbidden User (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Evil Queen (Disney) has been promoted as a good article, a significant portion of the process was done by you. Thanks a lot! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Forbidden. Remember how I said that I would do that merge between group dynamics and group behavior this month? Well it isn't going to happen. Sorry. It will happen on the 1st of September though. I am scheduling the time. Thanks for your patience. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In case you did not notice, the unresponsive user has answered some of your comments on the Wikipedia Talk page. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The other User who you said was "tag bombing" Wikipedia has apparently attained his/her objective of spurring someone else to initiate the delisting of Wikipedia from GA status. This was done before I could complete the investigation with admin:GFoley4 who felt it was more properly referred to as direct Vandalism. My report and diffs for this are on Talk:GFoley4 who has been on Wikibreak since last week. Prior to that, I reported the matter to admin:Eustress with a long list of diffs, and Eustress seemed to feel it looked like an ANI issue against the same tag bombing user (the prelim report is on Talk:Eustress under my name). I mention this in case you did not see these reports and because the tag bombing appears to be on the verge of delisting Wikipedia from GA status. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching it. Thank you for the reminder.Forbidden User (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Forbidden User; After taking a week off, the tag bombing and deletion of material has restarted by that same user earlier today. I have initiated an ANI on it this morning, and possibly you could glance at it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I sent a request in on your behalf through the Wikipedia:Requests for oversight process. PaleAqua (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @PaleAqua:.Forbidden User (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(Another warning) Stop removing (months old) comments from Wikipedia. Do this again and I will bring you ANI and ask that you be blocked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As an AN/I veteran, you know how others look at you the next time you show up. My comment is legitimate too - but you removed that instead of only adding your own comments back.Forbidden User (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're ultra-frustrated and/or out of arguments, a WP:Wikibreak and/or WP:DISENGAGE is a good idea.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming your intent and reasoning for purposely removing months old comments. You no longer exist to me. Good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A.k.a. out of arguments. I'd say no one'd be on your side if you ignore reasonable rebuttals. See WP:Etiquette.Forbidden User (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Tangled: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. This refers to the edit you reverted by User:Hammy23. Also, I'm aware of WP:DTTR but the template wording is better than what I might write on my own. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sometimes too lazy on that. Thanks guy! Forbidden User (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 25#Category:Disney_Princess. Thanks. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to edit war. The person who removed it said that it was already in but it wasn't so I assumed they were mistaken and put it back in. --Morgenstern91 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What? I couldn't really get it. I'll have a look.Forbidden User (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. --Morgenstern91 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen your copy edit to the above article and I wanted to thank you for having a shot at trying to fix the troublesome sentence. Unfortunately, I don't think you've quite fixed the problem, so I've asked SchroCat to have another look at it and I have provided him with a possible solution. I have posted that solution on the peer review page and have pinged you so you can take a look and help discuss it. No obligations, obviously. Cassianto^Talk 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  Saw that, thank you all for making it an FA!Forbidden User (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tangled original soundtrack.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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)