User talk:Perry mason

Food brands list..

Thanks for your contributions ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

Please join me at the talk page and explain what exactly you meant in your edit summary. There is no reliability issue and the Daily Show is a very notable political satire show. Its criticisms are not simply someone's personal opinions. Would you agree that at least a mention should be there, if perhaps a much shorter one? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT - for reference, this user was talking about this:
Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Please_explain_Daily_Show_removal

- Perry mason (talk)

Well Done

...for reverting the vandalism on The Sun. It had been there nearly an hour and no one had noticed! - tholly ^--Turnip-- 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

by Caceo

Talk:News_Corporation#Caceo_request_to_User:Perry_mason_-_second --Caceo (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Resume discussion

News Corp also called... resume. You can resume here your arguments. Ciao --Caceo (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Guardian

edit summary for my revert has limited space, so I'll add that the sentence you want to add at the end is inappropriate anyway, regardless of sourcing: the previous sentence there about the Met Police not reopening their enquiry is factual and to the point. "not yet provided evidence" is redundant, speculative and not encyclopedic. Rd232 ^talk 10:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

this is quite an entertaining edit summary ("revert - please dont edit war"), in the context of the previous edit summary ("undo, issues not addressed, discuss on talk") and the failure to engage with the discussion on the talk page. Please discuss (or just drop it, the arguments don't seem on your side, and it's not a particularly important or interesting thing to discuss at length). Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

arguments? im not going to argue with you. however, the facts about this SCANDAL and wiki policy are on my side so the content will stay however much you dislike that idea. if its not "important or interesting" just leave my edits alone then and stop worrying about it. Perry mason (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, read there are no mastodons here. And please engage with the discussion at Talk:The Guardian, section "revert", as requested numerous times before. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, read ASSUME GOOD FAITH. And please see my comments on talk before jumping to your own conclusions as seen numerous times before. Perry mason (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. you have been messing with the guardian page and editing other pages so fast, that i cannot keep up. let me at least make my comments before jumping in and saying 'user needs to get involved in discussion blah blah blah'. how on earth am i supposed to make comments in time before you keep reverting/re-editing pages etc?)

If you're going to cite AGF at me so insistently, please clarify why you think it necessary. Also clarify why you ignored the talk page consensus against your edits in your repeated re-additions; why it's essential that the disputed edits be in the article whilst you contest that consensus; why in your comment on the talk page you've failed to engage with a single one of the substantive arguments made; and finally why you've made a threat on that page to continue edit warring. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

because you are not assuming good faith so i feel the need to remind you of it. WTF do you keep going on about me ignoring talk for???? i HAVE commented HERE, ON YOUR PAGE, and ON THE GUARDIAN PAGE (even though it was the wrong page to begin with). i have to shout this because you dont seem to understand it (I HAVE I AM MAKING COMMENTS so what is your problem? I have made my valid points so i dont know what you are on about there. and the threat to re-revert your vandalism wasnt a threat... it was a promise! (yeah i couldnt resist that but its still true - i will revert your vandalism). Perry mason (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

At no point have I knowingly given any indication that I doubt your good faith (and I still don't). Allow me to clarify the discussion issue: a consensus was reached on the talk page at 12.18 on 10 Jan that your edit was inappropriate in a number of ways. You then reverted four times without reference to that discussion, even though I was pointing you to it in my edit summaries. OK, after the third revert you posted at the wrong talk page, because I made a mistake with my wikilink in our user talk page discussion. Nonetheless, you ignored the discussion for much of the time, and when you finally did post, you ignored everything said. Finally, you've broken the WP:3RR rule - please revert yourself or, in view of your continued threats to revert against consensus, I will have to report you for edit warring. Rd232 ^talk 11:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

if you dont doubt it, why did you keep removing my sourced additions without good reason then. 1 person agreed with you before i could even make my points. number 1 - im sure that does not make a consensus. number 2 - i made my points (even though you directed me to the wrong page) yet you have just dismissed them. I'VE BROKEN THE RULE!!! just looking at the history page of the guardian shows you on there tons of times so dont even dare comment on me doing it. if you want to report somebody, feel free to report yourself Perry mason (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

On a completely unrelated note, I see that you are marking all your contributions as "minor"; I presume you have "Mark all edits minor by default" ticked in your Preferences (Editing section). Please see Help:Minor edit on what that box is for - you should either remove that preference or consistently untick the box when it's not a minor edit. Rd232 ^talk 11:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

uh ok, thanks for letting me know i guess but all my edits are minor really. (although ive unticked it this once just for you! i will have a read of the article when i get a chance - but im busy trying to add my comments here first!) Perry mason (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Please hold back from comments like "WTF are you on? seriously?" - basic civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and it's much easier to reach a consensus over an edit if both sides are keeping calm. --McGeddon (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

apologies, i didnt mean it to come off as rude, im just seriously confused about it. reworded it to hopefully make it better Perry mason (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR case

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Perry mason reported by User:Rd232 (Result: No action). You are expected to follow the consensus reached on the talk page. If warring continues, sanctions may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Ghost stories vol1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ghost stories vol1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. serioushat 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ghost stories 5dvd.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ghost stories 5dvd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ghost stories vol1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ghost stories vol1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ghost stories vol2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ghost stories vol2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)