| Revision as of 04:19, 24 October 2014 editKoala15 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users132,324 edits →Bob's Burgers← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:44, 24 October 2014 edit undoCorenSearchBot (talk | contribs)235,712 edits Notifying user of possible copyvio on The Diam PieceNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,324: | Line 1,324: | ||
| :{{TPS}} Hi {{U|RThompson82}}, although I really wish Koala would have used clear edit summaries, your attempts to wedge this content into ], for example, doesn't seem to me like noteworthy content. Your edit summary, "Nope. If the Simpsons' chalkboard/couch crap is going to be in their articles, Burger of the Day will be in these. Period." attempts to assert some questionable authority over the article, which you do not have. And, your argument is basically a ] argument. ''The Simpsons'' is a significant cultural landmark, and while ''Bob's Burgers'' is a fantastic show, it hasn't yet achieved the same status that would warrant mention of every minor gag, such as the oft-subtle Burger of the Day gags. And if you think the content is crap, why would you argue for the inclusion of more crap in an international encyclopedia? Rhetorical question. It's a pointless argument. ] (]) 03:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | :{{TPS}} Hi {{U|RThompson82}}, although I really wish Koala would have used clear edit summaries, your attempts to wedge this content into ], for example, doesn't seem to me like noteworthy content. Your edit summary, "Nope. If the Simpsons' chalkboard/couch crap is going to be in their articles, Burger of the Day will be in these. Period." attempts to assert some questionable authority over the article, which you do not have. And, your argument is basically a ] argument. ''The Simpsons'' is a significant cultural landmark, and while ''Bob's Burgers'' is a fantastic show, it hasn't yet achieved the same status that would warrant mention of every minor gag, such as the oft-subtle Burger of the Day gags. And if you think the content is crap, why would you argue for the inclusion of more crap in an international encyclopedia? Rhetorical question. It's a pointless argument. ] (]) 03:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::], I couldn't have said it better myself. ] (]) 04:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | ::], I couldn't have said it better myself. ] (]) 04:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| ] | |||
| This is an automated message from ]. I have performed a web search with the contents of ], and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dilated-peoples.musicnewshq.com/news/unkutcom-a-tribute-to-ignorance-remix-77. | |||
| It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues. | |||
| If substantial content is duplicated and it is not ] or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our ] for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see ] for the procedure.)<!--This template located at Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes--> ] (]) 14:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||