User talk:Codywarren08

Welcome!

Hello, Codywarren08, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Gavin Hetherington. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Image:Same Difference We R One.jpg[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Same Difference We R One.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Same Difference We R One.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Same Difference We R One.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TLM2.jpg.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:TLM2.jpg.JPG. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:AlexandraFull.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexandraFull.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vickers[edit]

Do not undo good faith edits without comment. If you disagree with my edits, explain why. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:AlexBeyonce.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:AlexBeyonce.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:AlexBeyonce.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:AlexBeyonce.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image showing no evidence that the copyright holder has released it under the license indicated by the uploader which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:AlexBeyonce.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ros0709 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Simpsons Season 12.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:The Simpsons Season 12.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Eastwick Season 1 Poster.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Eastwick Season 1 Poster.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwick UK Airdate[edit]

Where did you get the UK airdate for the 2009 Eastwick series from? I'm not complaining or wanting to remove the date, I'm just curious because I want to watch the show on British television. Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:EastwickLogo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EastwickLogo.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).

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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eastwick Season 1 Poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eastwick Season 1 Poster.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).

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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Hetherington[edit]

Not sure what you were trying to do, but you managed to stick this old AfD into todays articles for deletion log. I've undone that for now, but if you need any help please ask. Quantpole (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Dancing On Ice Hayley Tamaddon.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dancing On Ice Hayley Tamaddon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Please avoid using multiple copies of the same reference within an article, as you did on Dancing on Ice (Series 5), as this clutters the reference list. Better is to create one reference on a given page and cite it as many times as is necessary. To do this, use the name attribute of the ref tag. The first time you cite a reference, define it as

<ref name="refname">Reference content</ref>

and then, when you want to cite the same reference later in the same article, just use

<ref name="refname"/>

where refname is a name of your choice. Good luck. -- Smjg (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to All Night Long (Alexandra Burke song). Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in Pretty Little Liars (TV series)‎[edit]

Hi there. I saw your recent edit to Pretty Little Liars (TV series)‎, and I just wanted to let you know about WP:SPOILER. "...in a nutshell: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." In the case of your reversion, you had every right to do so because the original edit was poorly done. As far as the spoilers, though, they are allowed. Just an FYI for the future. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Burke discography[edit]

hey, please stop changing the certifications. it doesnt matter how much they have sold, they are correct to what the bpi database says they are. Mister sparky (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the reference is the bpi database next to the certification itself. type alexandra burke as a keyword and it tells you her uk certifications. its irrelevant how much they have sold. Mister sparky (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for hero search "hero" as a keyword. as i said, sales are irrelevant. certifications are shipments not sales. Mister sparky (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, sales to retailers ie shipments. Mister sparky (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Little Liars season 1 page[edit]

I'm not doubting that the show is going to be a success with all of the promotion it is receiving. But is it really necessary to have season 1 page before the show is even premiering and before there is even a lot of info for the episodes, I think that pretty premature. I don't see anything wrong with all the season 1 info being on the main PLL episode list, That's the reason why I redirected the info in the first place. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best time to re-create would be if the main episode page were to reach about 40 or 60 KBs in size. Which will probably happen when the show reaches its second season or so. For more info see WP:PAGESIZE. Thanks for understanding in the first place. QuasyBoy (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MakeItOrBreakItIntertitle.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MakeItOrBreakItIntertitle.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.
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 here 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) 05:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

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 Eastwick (TV series), 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 removie souces from article if you want to discuess the issue please take it to the article talk page thank you Oo7565 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Raven season 1 page[edit]

Since you insist on season 1 have its own page, I hope you continue to add more content for other seasons as well. To be honest, I don't see anything with all the episode content on one page. The page was a little long yes, but nothing too extreme. Quasy Boy 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that GREAT to know. :) I took the liberty of fixing the the sublist text. Originally it was like this: "{{Episode list/sublist|List of That's So Raven episodes" but it will only be able to work with the ' between That and the letter s. Use this text: ' from now on so the pages can properly transclude. Quasy Boy 22:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let me know if you need more assistance. :) Quasy Boy 22:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:That's So Raven Logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:That's So Raven Logo.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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011[edit]

An image or media file,User:Codywarren08/Pretty Little Liars Season 1, has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Further use of these images will be considered vandalism, and shall be treated as such. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. AussieLegend (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pifeedback.com[edit]

After a rather lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, consensus was that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Consensus was so strong that one user has been blocked indefinitely because he persisted in using pifeedback.com as a source in articles.[1] Accordingly, I have removed the pifeedback.com references that you added to Pretty Little Liars (season 1). --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

Your addition to List of No Ordinary Family episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. KnownAlias contact 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Revenge intertitle.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Revenge intertitle.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 here 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) 05:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2 Broke Girls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DVR (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) 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Once Upon a Time (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DVR (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) 11:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Witches of East End (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lifetime and Georgia

List of most watched television broadcasts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Your addition to Witches of East End (TV series) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Show synopsis section copied word-for-word from press release: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/26/lifetimes-new-drama-witches-of-east-end-to-premiere-october-6/194234/ Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gavin Hetherington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror (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) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gavin Hetherington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (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) 11:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Horror and Jock

Witches of East End (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AMC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gavin Hetherington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MetroCentre (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) 09:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Come As You Are (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) 09:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (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) 08:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gavin Hetherington for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gavin Hetherington is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Hetherington (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gavin Hetherington[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Gavin Hetherington, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Hey, I wanted to give you a little information about reliable sources because well... none of the sources on either Gavin Hetherington or Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned are usable to show notability. None of them. If anything, they're pretty much the opposite of what a WP:RS would be.

First off, Amazon isn't a reliable source for anything when you come down to it. They're a merchant source, so anything they post will be done so in the interest of selling a product. Even their "bestselling" categories are suspect since in many cases they make the categories so specific that it's very, very easy for someone to claim that they're the bestseller in whatever category. This is why we never, never count selling numbers or bestselling status towards notability. It's very easy for someone to manipulate the categories to give themselves a bestselling status, especially on Amazon. I've actually seen incidents where authors have signed up with multiple accounts and downloaded a book multiple times in order to accomplish this- even outright telling others to do so. It's usually the ones who aren't so discreet about it that get caught. This isn't the case in every instance, but it's prevalent enough to where sales numbers don't count towards notability. I mean, even the New York Times Bestselling list isn't safe from people altering numbers to gain access. This guy actually manipulated the list to get on it, which is why we don't count the NYTBL either. The only thing sales numbers mean is that the book is more likely to gain coverage, but that isn't a guarantee. There are a lot of bestselling books that hit high numbers but never get even a bit of attention.

The second thing is that the only reviews that "count" are the ones that are done by people in reliable sources. That means that no amount of good reviews by Amazon customers or Goodreads people, or blog sources will count towards notability. Some blogs do count towards notability, but it's very, very rare- as in, go buy a lottery ticket type of rare. Blogs are only usable as RS when they have an editorial board that we can verify and when they've been around long enough to gain a reputation of sorts. This usually means that it's an official blog of someone notable or of a notable or respectable institution, such as the editor of the New York Times or the official blog of the ALA. A random book reviewer blog isn't going to give notability regardless of how popular it is. Even Dear Author, one of the most popular book review/news sites out there isn't considered a reliable source. You should never, never, NEVER link to a customer review on Amazon or any review on any social media review site. NEVER. The problem is that even if the review asserts that it's from a notable person such as say, Melissa Marr giving a book 5 stars, those sites are very easy to manipulate when you get down to it, plus you have to verify that they're not just giving a buddy a 5 star review. Stuff like that happens- one person scratches another person's back and so on. The other problem with review sites like those is that it's so incredibly easy for an author to fake their own reviews. A big, big case in point: Robert Stanek. I'll just let you read up on him yourself, but he's essentially one of the most infamous reasons we don't count Amazon or social media type reviews.

This brings me to another point: none of the award nominations are usable. The problem with Goodreads, the Bath Novel Awards, and the Shorty Awards is that those are all awards that someone could essentially nominate themselves for. Even if the author isn't supposed to nominate themselves, there's nothing stopping them from making a fake account and nominating themselves. When you get down to brass tacks, nominations don't give notability. Only wins give notability. A nomination for an overwhelmingly notable award might make it likely that you'll gain coverage, but it isn't a guarantee and in many cases only the really well known awards will gain someone coverage for a nomination. (Think Oscars.) Even then, an award win doesn't guarantee notability as 5% of any award in any category gives notability and even less than that would give absolute notability that would merit a keep on that basis alone. (Again, think Oscars and Grammys.) Nominations don't really count towards anything, although we will sometimes list them on here. Listing them isn't really an imperative, just sort of an aside.

So what does count towards notability? Coverage in places such as newspapers, trusted websites, and absolute authorities would count. A review in say, the New York Times would count towards notability as would an article written by them. Coverage in a site such as Tor.com would count as well, but you'd have to ensure that it wasn't a blog written by the author. The thing to be careful of is that you don't count WP:PRIMARY sources as a reliable source. No amount of primary coverage will be counted as usable towards notability. Why? Because quite obviously, they're interested in succeeding. It's natural and correct for them to write about themselves in the best way possible. What that means for us is that we should always be suspect of their claims and assertions. A person could say that an award nomination or selling status is the peak of notability, when in actuality it isn't. That's why we need reliable secondary sources to show notability and back up claims that what they're claiming is really notable and worth inclusion.

Now another thing I noticed was that you tend to write in a very casual tone. Not so much that it would be a problem in some circumstances, but when you're including several very non-usable sources and writing up trivial things as notable things, it comes across as a bit spammy. That's why it's so incredibly important to verify that sources are usable and that claims are actually notable before creating an article or adding something. I hope that none of this comes across badly to you, just that these articles come across as puffery (WP:PUFFERY) and promotional in tone, and until I checked out your edit history, I assumed that you were either the author himself or someone he paid to create an article. Forgive me for being so blunt, but you've got to be very careful about stuff like this because once people associate you with unreliable sources and promotional articles, it's hard to build a reputation back up. It's really important to learn these things so you can avoid doing stuff like this in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I kind of felt that this all boiled down to you just being new on Wikipedia because this was a lot of the same things I did when I first joined up here. I remember getting all baffled when people reverted everything I did or removed a link for various reasons, but never told me what I did wrong or explained any of it. It was pretty frustrating, which was probably why I didn't edit as regularly then as I do now. Now something you can do for this author is create a Wikia site for him. It's not exactly the same thing as Wikipedia since he would be the sole subject of an entire wiki (along with his work), but it's a good way to kind of get the information out there without all of the rules on Wikipedia. It's also a good place to practice writing articles. Your userspace is also a good place to try things out, as is your sandbox. There's a group sandbox (Wikipedia:Sandbox), but the problem with that is that others can edit it at the same time which can be annoying if you're trying to see if something will work or not. It also gets periodically cleaned out, so if you're looking for a place to store work then your own sandbox will be better. In any case, I'm glad you didn't take any of that wrong; sometimes in my gusto to try to include everything or emphasize something I'll end up sounding kind of overly blunt. Cheers! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the pages List of Eastwick episodes and Witches of East End (season 1), but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your additions have been deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and the same applies to Pilot (Eastwick). In fact, I am beginning to wonder how much of your editing consists of posting material you copy from elsewhere. You really must not continue to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just ask, what exactly was copyright information on the List of Eastwick episodes, Witches of East End (season 1) and Pilot (Eastwick) pages please? Like I would actually need citations to show what was copyright because I don't see how common knowledge for a List of episodes page, a page about a season of a television show and a page about an episode of a television show breaches copyright four years after the creation of those pages (well for the Eastwick articles). I don't see why they were deleted at all, especially with no option to protest the decision as they took a lot of time to build and was free information. So I would really appreciate a justified reason for each brash decision for deleting those pages. Thanks very much Codywarren08 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles contained word-for word copies of extensive text, which has been published elsewhere. You refer to "common knowledge". No copyright subsists in "common knowledge" of facts, nor indeed in facts of any sort, whether common knowledge or not, but copyright does subsist in the actual wording used to state those facts. For example, there is no copyright in the facts that grass is green and the sky is blue, but if I copy the actual wording of another person's statement about the colours of grass and the sky then I may well be infringing copyright. If a published account says "The story begins in a small croft in the Scottish highlands, where James Watson has just arrived home from a visit to Edinburgh", then I am perfectly at liberty to write "James Watson had recently returned from Edinburgh to his Highland cottage", but if I wrote "The story begins in a small croft in the Scottish highlands, where James Watson has just arrived home from a visit to Edinburgh" then I would be unambiguously infringing copyright, and even if I wrote "James Watson has just arrived home from a visit to Edinburgh" I would be pushing things.

You refer to "free information". That depends what you mean by "free" and what you mean by "information". As I have already indicated, if by "information" you mean facts, then there is no copyright, but if you mean the actual wording describing those facts, then that is a different matter. If by "free" you mean freely available to read, then that has nothing to do with the copyright status of the information. If you mean free of copyright (i.e. public domain), or if you mean licensed under the terms of a so-called "free" license, then you need to provide evidence of that. Wikipedia policy is that we don't presume that there is copyright release, but require firm evidence.

The episode lists have been copied on various websites, but that does not in any way invalidate their copyright. There is, for some strange reason, a widespread belief that anything published anywhere on the internet is free for anyone to reuse, and so content gets copied everywhere, particularly in subject areas which appeal largely to adolescent children, such as games, television series, etc. However, the fact that lots of people have infringed copyright does not mean that the copyright somehow disappears, or that it becomes all right for other people to do the same.

You say that you don't understand how the content "breaches copyright four years after the creation of those pages". However, the passage of a mere four years does not lead to any loss of copyright: United States copyright normally persists until seventy years after the death of the author.

I do sympathise with you over your loss of time and effort, since you no doubt acted in good faith, under the mistaken impression that copying content from other websites word for word was legally permitted. However, the fact remains that what you did was pretty certainly illegal, whether intentionally or not, and Wikipedia policy is for copyright-infringing pages to be speedily deleted as soon as the problem comes to light, not to leave it around while we discuss the issues. Indeed, if we had a policy of allowing content to remain on public view after it had become known that copyright was infringed, then the Wikmedia foundation could very well find itself being sued by numerous copyright owners. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have quite happily worded episode summaries in my own words had I had the opportunity before the deletion of the List of Eastwick episodes page, which is what I am assuming was the only thing that breached copyright on that page. I can understand copyright that you have very kindly explained to me, but it doesn't help me identify the specific examples of what I had simply copy and pasted. The same must apply to the Witches of East End season 1 page as I referenced statements and information, and episode summaries I actually did not write, somebody else must have included those, I just moved the table over from the main Witches of East End page to the Season 1 page that I created. Other than episode summaries, I really don't know what I could have simply copy and pasted without referencing. If I had of known that was just quite simply the case, then deletion of those pages could have been avoided entirely and now collected data (such as UK ratings for Eastwick episodes which I researched myself four years ago) are now just gone and infomation about the episodes that aired of Eastwick is just completely not there. It's great that the deletion of the Season 1 page of Witches of East End didn't affect the List of episodes page and the table is still intact, but because the Season 1 page is deleted, there is no way anyone can now edit the Season 1 table, and with an additional season ordered, if a season 1 page doesn't exist anymore, then it would defeat the purpose of having a season 2 page. The season 1 page could have been added to over time and is completely within Wikipedia guidelines considering almost every television show with more than one season has separate pages for the shows. I would like to protest these decisions of drastically deleting these pages when they could have been worked on and avoided deleting completely. Codywarren08 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you deleted the List of Eastwick episodes page because of the Witches of East End website episode guide. Did it ever occur to you that maybe that site copied its information from Wikipedia where the information has been available for over four years now? I don't know if this is the case or not but it does look to me like it was episode summaries that caused the deletion of the page. I would happily re-write the episode summaries as now there is no episode information for Eastwick whatsoever. You also cite a 4Shared website as reason for the deletion of the Season 1 Witches of East End page. I can assure you I did not use a website to illegally watch a show online to include information into that page. In fact it is quite ridiculous that the website in question is the reason for deleting a season page. It must be because of episode summaries which they could have, yet again, quite easily copied from Wikipedia in the first place? That website does not hold any copyright to an episode summary when the website itself is not a reliable source of information and is involved in illegal streaming of television shows. Codywarren08 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you have written is somewhat difficult to understand, but I think I understand the main points of what you are trying to convey, and I will try to answer those.

You ask "Did it ever occur to you that maybe that site copied its information from Wikipedia...?" Certainly it did. I checked that the content in question was available on websites dated from before the dates of creation of the Wikipedia articles that I deleted. Where I have given a URL to a page where the copied content is to be seen, that is merely for the purpose of providing evidence that the content did exist before the creation of the Wikipedia article, and I express no view as to whether the page at the URL I give is the original publication or a subsequent copy. Since, as I have already said, the content has in some cases been very widely copied in numerous places, it is very difficult to find where the original publication was, and I have made no attempt to do so, nor to determine whether the content was legally or illegally included at the URL I have quoted. There is no doubt whatever that you copied substantial content from somewhere, and if the source you copied from had itself infringed copyright by copying from somewhere else, such as another Wikipedia article, that does not somehow nullify the copyright status of the copied content.

You say "I did not use a website to illegally watch a show online to include information into that page". It never even crossed my mind that there was any possibility of that, and I certainly don't see anything to suggest that in anything I have written.

You may possibly think, as many people do, that there is no restriction whatever on copying from a Wikipedia page. This, however, is not true. Wikipedia's licensing terms require any copy to give a link to where it was copied from, so that the copyright holder can be identified. Copying content from Wikipedia without providing that information is a breach of copyright. This means that if, as you seem to be saying, you copied content from one Wikipedia article to another, without linking back to the source (most conveniently this can be done in an edit summary), then you were infringing the copyright of the author of that content, whether it originated on Wikipedia or not. There are also at least two other reasons why copying from one Wikipedia page to another without saying so is unhelpful: (1) it makes it difficult to see where the content comes from, so if it did originate on Wikipedia and was then copied to other places off Wikipedia, it makes it look as though the content may have originated off Wikipedia; (2) if it is discovered that the content infringes copyright, then it makes it very difficult to find all instances of the copyright infringement on Wikipedia, which causes difficulty in removing such infringements.

As I hope is now clear, whether the content originated on Wikipedia or not is irrelevant to the question of whether copying it infringed copyright. Nevertheless, I have made considerable efforts to check whether it did originate on Wikipedia. Neither searches within Wikipedia nor external searches such as Google have managed to produce any evidence of the content's having appeared in any Wikipedia page at any earlier date than the earliest dates I found for its appearance elsewhere. Also, the content does not look as though it was written for Wikipedia. The language and expression used is typical of writing by copy-editors employed to write promotional material for companies producing television series, and does not look remotely like the kind of phrasing which is typical of the people (mostly teenage children) who spend their time writing such small details about television series as accounts of plots of individual episodes. Of course, that is not proof, but combined with the other information it contributes to the very strong overall impression that the content did not originate on Wikipedia.

You say that you "just moved the table over from the main Witches of East End page to the Season 1 page". In the context, you seemed to be saying that you had merely copied from another Wikipedia article, and so were not responsible for introducing it to Wikipedia. I took "the main Witches of East End page" as meaning the article Witches of East End, but I can find no trace of the content anywhere in that article's history, so that can't be what you mean. I did, however, find that similar content once existed in List of Witches of East End episodes, and that you removed it from there. However, that article was created by you, and that content was inserted into the article by you, so that can't be what you mean either. Perhaps you can clarify what you do mean by that statement.

I have looked again at Witches of East End (season 1), and found that, contrary to my previous impression, the copyright-infringing material was not there right from the first version, but was added nine minutes later. I have therefore restored the revisions of the article before the material was added. Unfortunately, this has the effect of losing later edits, but there is no way of keeping those without either keeping the copyright infringing material in the history or else removing the attribution of later edits to their authors, which would be a breach of Wikipedia's licensing terms. Similar remarks apply to List of Eastwick episodes. On the other hand Pilot (Eastwick) contained substantial copied text right from its first version. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Warner (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) 08:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PrettyLittleLiarsIntertitle.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PrettyLittleLiarsIntertitle.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. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WitchesofEastEndSeason1Poster.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WitchesofEastEndSeason1Poster.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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gavin Hetherington (December 31)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Arthur goes shopping was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gavin Hetherington and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Codywarren08, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Real (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nick Carter and The Game (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gavin Hetherington concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gavin Hetherington, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gavin Hetherington[edit]

Hello, Codywarren08. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Gavin Hetherington".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:GavinHetherington.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:GavinHetherington.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 {{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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salem (season 2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Peterson. 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) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Codywarren08. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PrettyLittleLiarsCast.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PrettyLittleLiarsCast.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) 17:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Codywarren08. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:A Series of Unfortunate Events Logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Series of Unfortunate Events Logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 04:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Tap Original - The Babysitter Part III.jpg[edit]

The file File:Tap Original - The Babysitter Part III.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Decorative use of a non-free cover art/image in Wattpad#Tap. While Wikipedia does generally allow non-free cover art to be uploaded and used, it generally only considered acceptable when the cover art image is being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of an article about the work in question. In other articles, as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, non-free use is much harder to justify and generally requires that the image itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary. There's nothing about the way this image is being used which provides the context required by WP:NFCC#8, and the claim that images shows the "growth show the growth of Tap and how they expanded into Tap Originals in 2017" or that it "The Babysitter series is one of Tap's biggest and will only be used to demonstrate the success of Tap's venture" does ont require that the reader actually see this particular image to be understood per WP:FREER.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Codywarren08. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Codywarren08. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWEBHOST[edit]

For years you have used Wikipedia to promote what seems to be your own writing and your own career. I deleted User:Codywarren08 and User:Codywarren08/sandbox as violations of our policies. I have refrained from blocking you per WP:NOTHERE, although I had to go back hundreds of edits to find any edits of yours that were not in user space. Please consider what this project is and what it is for. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page:

Why did you delete my user page?[edit]

Hi, why did you delete my user page? It was just for my own personal use but you deleted it? Why? --Codywarren08 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just explained why, I think. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't. Explain to my why you deleted my PERSONAL user page? I need all that information you just deleted, how am I going to get it back? It wasn't public and it wasn't being used to advance my "career" as you say. Why didn't you warn me if I was violating things on my personal user page? Is there a way for me to get all that information back? And isn't a sandbox supposed to be for personal use too? --Codywarren08 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. A sandbox is to do things related to Wikipedia. We are not a webhost. At least one editor on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Hetherington (2nd nomination) suggested you were spamming. You've been here for thirteen years--that's long enough to learn what rules apply here. I restored the last edit of the user page: please go copy the information right now. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is my user page for? Is it to not... talk about myself? As a user of Wikipedia? Fair enough, delete the sandbox but my personal user page? But if you delete my user page, for being about me, is that not violating something? Do explain to me what a user page is for then.--Codywarren08 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it is not. See Wikipedia:User pages. I see that Ohnoitsjamie deleted it again; I assume you were smart enough to copy it right away. Now, I have restored User:Codywarren08/sandbox, which I think is a lengthy draft with a kind of linkdump-style resume for a non-notable YouTuber; please copy and save it right now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)(talk page stalker) Per Wikipedia:User pages, User pages are pages for organizing the work users do on Wikipedia, as well as speaking to other users. User pages are mainly for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. The key word here is LIMITED. Look at my User page or Drmies for comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - You originally deleted my user page saying I was "promoting my own writing and career". It is my private and personal user page which had nothing in there that violated guidelines. I was not promoting anything because nobody was seeing it but me. So, is it really fair to delete my personal user page for the reasons you initially said, whether or not the autobiographical part was "limited"? If you had of said, "you have too much on your user page, please take the time to delete anything unnecessary" then fair enough, but you initially deleted it for the wrong reasons. That, to me, isn't fair.--Codywarren08 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:WEBHOST (emphasis mine):

Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.

Your person page was clearly not relevant to Wikipedia. You're close to being blocked per WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Then why did nobody tell me that I had too much on my personal user page? If you look at why it was initially deleted by Drmies, there was no mention that there was too much on my user page, just that I was using it to advance my own career? All I'm saying here is that it wasn't fair and now it seems like I'm being piled on for an honest mistake.--Codywarren08 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please acknowledge that you've saved the material somewhere besides Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Yes, it is. Would love to, again, know why no one just told me I had too much on my personal user page in the first place, but thank you for your time.--Codywarren08 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Codywarren08, here's the thing. You've been here for forever, using this website for your own purposes, blissfully unaware of any of our rules and regulations, even though the two deletion discussions and the comments by Tokyogirl79, now User:ReaderofthePack should have made it clear that you had misconceptions--and then you go and complain, when the consequences of your abusing those policies and guidelines finally become clear to you, that you were not sufficiently made aware of these policies and guidelines. And here we are, offering you a chance to save all the stuff you put on Wikipedia's servers, and you're still yelling at us? Drmies (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorantia juris non excusat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just would have appreciated a “user page too long” message, not an insulting accusation. I hadn’t done anything with any public Wikipedia pages about myself since 2014, which was 8 years ago. That’s all it’s about. If you had of just said at the start my user page was too long, I would have understood and narrowed it down Drmies. I just don’t understand why you get other mods to come here to bully and ridicule me and then say on your own talk page that I’m being childish.—Codywarren08 (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one is ridiculing you. You are going to need thicker skin to work in a collaborative environment. They were patient enough to wait to let you save your info, and explained it. You might not like it, you might feel embarassed, hell I don't know what you feel, but you aren't being ridiculed nor bullied, you're being informed. It's ok to make mistakes. It's ok to point them out. Just roll with it, it isn't a big deal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this kind of stuff, "Hi, this is my user page that I'm apparently not allowed to use", which is passive-aggressive and completely untrue, that puts the icing on the cake. You're either here to improve our encyclopedia, or you're WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just be more professional in the future Drmies instead of ridiculing me with other mods (OhNoitsJamie) on your talk page. Thank you.--Codywarren08 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not ridiculing you: I was merely saying that you weren't acting like an adult. You weren't. My advice to you is to not look for insults if you're already dead-set on seeing them, and the more you ping me (and the less you actually contribute to the project) the worse it's going to look for you. And feel free to not ping me: you're just dragging this out. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know I was talking about the “Abyssal Sanctuary is going to be the name of my death metal band, and Remnants of the Damned will be our first demo.” Stop gaslighting me by pretending you aren’t making fun of me. You keep returning here when you genuinely don’t need to. You made your point, you don’t need to make fun of me with other mods on your talk page in the meantime Drmies. —Codywarren08 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ha, so if I was making fun of anything it was about a set of words, not about you. If you don't want me to return here, stop fucking pinging me. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Completely unacceptable and gaslighting behaviour Drmies. Thank you for admitting I was right. Have a nice night. —Codywarren08 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Codywarren08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to appeal this block if that is at all possible. I realise I let my emotions get the better of me and I am a very defensive person, so when my user page was initially deleted with the reason that I was just furthering my career, I felt it was unfair and untrue. However, I do acknowledge and apologise for the fact my user page got too long. I don't believe I have made any autobiographical edits on the main Wikipedia site since my mistakes in 2014, which was 8 years ago. I didn't realise my user page was getting too long and that I was using it for the wrong reasons. I don't agree with the statement that I have barely contributed to the encyclopaedia and that I'm only here to write autobiographical things. I made huge improvements to various pages, but most notably, the List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies page. I revamped the look of the page with a huge redesign with the tables, and a lot of the information in those tables too. I worked hours upon hours on that page making it look the way it does today, and I researched ratings with sources and a whole lot more. I mainly did that in December 2017, only 4 years 1 month ago, which shows that I grew and haven't done anything on the main Wikipedia site about myself, only on my user page, and learned from my mistakes in 2014. I don't think it's fair bringing something up that happened 8 years ago over something that happened 4 years ago, and would like to appeal the block as it shows that I can and have made worthwhile edits. I have also made contributions to TV show pages and movie pages over the years too. Literally you can see that I have made hundreds upon hundreds of edits over the years when you look at my contributions. I only ask that I don't get judged for something I did 8 years ago over the literal hundreds of contributions I've made since then. The block says "I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia" but my contributions say otherwise, and if unblocked, I will continue to prove otherwise. All I ask is some fairness and looking at the whole picture, rather than fixating on an eight year old mistake. Thank you. Codywarren08 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below comments. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been back since my earlier posts back in 2014, so I wasn't aware of the very long userpage you'd been cultivating. While you've made some edits, much of your editing seems to have been you using your userpage as a defacto website/blog. Wikipedia is WP:NOTABLOG or a place for you to add random stuff - your userpage should overall only cover you as it applies to editing Wikipedia. Some basic information about yourself in general is fine, but a list of your Christmas Blu-Rays is not. Your interaction with Drmies also smacks of WP:BADFAITH and I don't see where you're really taking in what he's been saying. (WP:IDHT) He was honestly a lot kinder to you than some of the other admins might have been - many would have blocked you outright for your userpage itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the autobiography you wrote on yourself, as well as a history of trying to create similar pages. Creating autobiographies is highly discouraged, as it's easy to take a rejection or deletion personally. It's also harder to judge notability as most people aren't going to be neutral and non-partial towards themselves. I see that the deleted draft had issues with notability and tone, which likely also contributed towards its deletion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi ReaderofthePack, you're bringing up things that happened 8 years ago. I have contributed to Wikipedia over the years, most noticeably the List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies page, where I sorted out the mess that pages used to be and made it the way it is today with its design, with all of the tables and information including ratings, releases and more. So no, I didn't only make edits to my user page, or minimal edits to Wikipedia itself, so that's a lie being told in order to justify siding with a Wikipedia moderator who I have since found out has a history of being abusive. A simple google search of his username made me aware of this, so if you want to encourage his gaslighting and bullying behaviour, then I genuinely don't care. Again, you seem to want to overlook his ridiculing of me on his talk page and his general bullying behaviour, whatever, I've stopped caring. I've been cyberbullied before and I'm sure it will happen again. What is my history of trying to create similar pages? We have already covered 2014 and my user page. What else? Please show me the evidence. Because honestly, it sounds like you're bringing up stuff that happened 8 years ago (!!!! eight !!!!) and not letting it go. A user page is harmless and I have apologised for letting it get too long. Drmies' foul language and abusive behaviour is unacceptable and it's also very disappointing to see you turn a blind eye to that. But it's fine. Continue holding on to things I did 8 years ago if that makes you feel better.--Codywarren08 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey: I didn't fixate on something that you did 8 years ago. I focused on what you were doing until yesterday. And now you're telling me you're going around browsing the internet to dig up dirt, shit that others have said about me? Oh please tell me about how I'm supposedly paid by Intel. Is that what you found? Did you know that the asshole that invented that contacted my employer, and tried to get me fired? That I ended up having to explain this to HR? You go try to explain something like that. And you want to talk about mental health, when you're actively contributing to smirching my reputation? Please. User:Dennis Brown, please don't ping me from this talk page anymore, unless it's to tell me that the editor is apologizing. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to review, but I think I will take a pass. Drmies, "Foul mouth"? Need a diff for that. I probably cuss more than most admin, haven't seen much of that from him, except to pepper a phrase every now and then. We aren't WP:CENSORED, by the way, so cursing (by itself) isn't against policy. Using any words that is a personal attack is, but not cursing. Btw, I just found an edit someone did 15 years ago that I have to RevDel (hide from public). Very offensive. So just because something was a long time ago doesn't mean we don't delete it or whatnot. ReaderofthePack is the one that blocked you, not Drmies, so I suggest you first understand the reason, and discuss it with her, even before you appeal. From experience, I can tell you that 99% of the appeals that start with "I believe I have been unfairly blocked." get denied. So thicken your skin a bit, discuss with her if you like (I recommend) and lets work through this if we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love to work through this Dennis Brown honestly because this has had such a knock on my mental health this past week. Obviously I feel ganged up on and ignored when I've brought up my contributions to the site, and yet everyone wants to fixate on a mistake I made on this website 8 years ago, only for people to say I have barely made any contributions on this site when my contributions page clearly indicates otherwise. It genuinely does feel unfair that something that happened 8 years ago, when I was a lot younger, is being used against me, and I don't understand why my hundreds of contributions in the eight years since has been ignored to fit this narrative of me being only here to "further my career", which is so not true! I love Wikipedia, it's always been a dream of mine to have a page on Wikipedia, and I just let my user page get too long. That was the issue but focus was being put on my mistake from 2014. I felt judged and ridiculed on some of the moderator's talk pages, as I have mentioned, and again that feels unfair. All I ask is for some impartiality and fairness when deciding to outright block me from editing, especially when the block is saying that I'm not here to contribute to Wikipedia, when that really is not true.--Codywarren08 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me state a couple of problems, some that involve you and some that don't. Wikipedia is flooded with wannabe notable people (not you) that are trying to make articles on themselves for being rappers, and "successful tech entrepreneurs" and such. Absolutely flooded with it. It takes a lot of time for admin. As an admin, after I've seen my 30th this week (and 30 a week, every week, every week before that), you get numb to it, and you just block anyone that is doing similar stuff. You are doing similar stuff. Similar enough at least, considering the user page which lasted years, and the autobiographical sandbox, etc. (yes admin can see deleted stuff). Was it completely fair to block you? I don't know, I've only looked at a few dozen diffs. Can I understand why she blocked you? Yes. Have you ever played the game "Whack a Mole" at a fair or festival before? For us, it kind feels like that. We just want to write articles, too, but so much of our time is spent dealing with those guys. So we have become quite efficient at dispensing with them.

So the question for me is simple: Is this an editor that can participate here and help us out and stay out of trouble? Maybe. What I suggest is rewriting your appeal completely. Me, I would say something like

I don't necessarily agree with the block, but I do understand WHY I was blocked, which was focusing on self promotional stuff that really doesn't belong here. At first glance, I can understand why someone might question my motives, but my motives are to do good things for the encyclopedia. If unblocked, I promise to NOT do any autobiographical articles or sandboxes. I understand that my user page is a good place to put information about me, so my fellow editors know something about me, but it isn't a resume, and the purpose is to have a place for things I'm working on that relate specifically to Wikipedia, so I will moderate how much biographical material I put on there. I'm interested in working on $X article and $Y article and $Z article, and I'm asking for a second chance to come back and show that I really am here to help build an encyclopedia.

Now, don't say anything that isn't true (we know when your lying ;) and for god's sake don't copy this, I'm saying that you need to humble up a bit and realize that she didn't block you because she is a monster and that likes blocking young men. Actually, she's quite sweet. Funny thing, the biggest smartass/jerk on this page is probably me, but I'm trying to help you understand more than "how to get unblocked", I'm trying to get you to understand that she wouldn't have blocked you unless you pushed the right buttons that made it APPEAR you were just a spammer/autobiographical/time-waster person, and yes, I understand why she blocked you. If you want to get unblocked, you don't have to pretend you're sorry for something you aren't sorry for, you have acknowledge the reasons for the block, demonstrate why the block isn't needed, give us an idea what you want to do, and tell us what you will no longer do. And be sincere. We need to believe you really want to just edit articles and not write articles on yourself.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I want to understand a bit about how and why this system is the way it is, perhaps because I'm hopeful you will get unblocked, and you will edit in an acceptable and helpful fashion. And let me warn you this: You are going to be judged, and people are going to talk shit to you, and Wikipedia is absolutely unfair. In every possible way. Just like real life. I'm going to take my leave, and let you, Reader, the reviewing admin all sort the rest. I've said enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thank you for wanting to help and I've taken your feedback on board Dennis Brown. Obviously I've let my emotions get the better of me, and it's unfair of me to speak of my mental health issues with people who don't know about them. I'm sure ReaderofthePack is a nice person but I would love to stop being judged for a mistake I made eight years ago, and hope that my contributions to Wikipedia since then will be enough to show that I'm not here to write pages about myself, as previously thought. Thank you for taking the time to help.--Codywarren08 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Coming back just to say, you do kind of owe an apology or two, once you clear your head. Not to me of course. Half the people at Wikipedia have mental health issues. You don't know that I do or don't. Because of that, it isn't ever accepted as justification here. I suggest removing the appeal for a couple of days and clear your head, and start over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to be back on until now, but here's my thoughts on the other edits: your edits on other articles have honestly been fewer and far between. Your last edit to an article was in April 2020, however since that time you've made 1000+ edits (almost but not quite 2000 - I got this figure by eyeballing your deleted edits) in your userspace that were essentially blog and other WP:NOTWEBHOST edits. So that's over a year of you doing nothing but cultivating non-beneficial edits and just using Wikipedia in ways that it's not meant to be used. That's not including the edits that you made prior to your last mainspace edit. If we include those, that's about 3000+ edits of you just using your userspace as a webhost. These edits seemed to really start becoming more frequent and heavy the year after the article you wrote on yourself was deleted.

To be blunt, your main purpose for being here seems to have been to write about yourself - first as an attempt to have a live article and then to use your userspace to the same end. At best this is you using Wikipedia as a webhost and at worst it's a way of circumventing the article deletion by making a defacto "article" in your userspace. If you'd been more active then holding up the other edits would hold more water, but by large editing Wikipedia seems to have been a distant afterthought. Then on top of that, you were pretty nasty to other users.

Now in order to get unblocked you need to essentially understand why you were blocked, which I've laid out here. One of the requirements for an unblock will be that you can't recreate any of the content that was deleted and your userpage needs to be minimal. Some content about yourself as it applies to editing is fine, but what you had previously wasn't. It would also be good to detail what you plan on doing once you're unblocked - what do you plan on doing? It would also be good to get a refresher on some of the editing guidelines as well, since Wikipedia guidelines do change occasionally. Usually it's in smaller increments but it's those small changes that can really get you, depending on what they are. We need reassurance that you're not just here to use Wikipedia as a webhost or write about yourself. The apologies would be good as well, but more than that we need to know that you understand that you need to be calm when interacting with other edits and WP:AGF as much as possible. Keep in mind that it's hard to read inflections and you can't read body language at all, so sometimes something may come across wrong (either from them or you) without it meaning to sound bad. Goodness knows I've had that happen to and by me on occasion before as far as online writing goes in general. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I do promise to not use my user page as a blog, or to even do any kind of articles about myself. I do acknowledge and apologise for allowing my user page to get far too long, it definitely got out of hand and I do understand why I was blocked. In the future I would like to try my hand at editing pages that need major updates, like I did with the Hallmark Original Movies page, as before it was completely unreadable and poorly sourced. I am pretty knowledgeable in the book industry now after years of experience in bookselling and working with publishers, so I would like to maybe focus on the book side of things on Wikipedia (though obviously not anything to do with my own lol). I do stand by the fact that I, again, am being ignored when I bring up the bullying and ridiculing on other people's user pages, and I don't expect an apology from anyone even though one would be nice. I am willing to move on from that. I do apologise for the way I came across and for defending myself in a way that might have appeared nasty to other people.--Codywarren08 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that it was too long, but rather that it was about content that had nothing to do with Wikipedia. For example, there's no reason for there to be information about what movies you have in your collection or a list of what you've written. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - Okay, again I apologise for that, and I'm unsure of where to go from here (｡◕‿◕｡). I have acknowledged I made a mistake with my user page and I am sorry.--Codywarren08 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Codywarren08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, again I apologise for that, and I'm unsure of where to go from here (｡◕‿◕｡). I have acknowledged I made a mistake with my user page and I am sorry.

Accept reason:

I'm going to unblock you and give you another chance. The unblock requirements are as listed above: you must not create userpages like you had before, you can't write about yourself on Wikipedia, and you must make beneficial edits. I also heavily recommend going over some training guides like this to help give you a refresher on general editing. You should also apologize to the others as well, btw.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grey's Anatomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PrettyLittleLiarsIntertitle.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PrettyLittleLiarsIntertitle.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]