| Revision as of 23:53, 20 December 2006 editSparsefarce (talk | contribs)1,519 edits ==Overlord meme==← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:57, 31 December 2006 edit undoYst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users592 edits bad faith editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| Thanks for following through on the redirect of ] to ]. However, you forgot to add the info (effectively merging) to the new article. I went ahead and added the Overlord meme info. ] 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | Thanks for following through on the redirect of ] to ]. However, you forgot to add the info (effectively merging) to the new article. I went ahead and added the Overlord meme info. ] 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Editing in Bad Faith == | |||
| Over the past few months, you have continued, through dozens of reverts by at least four different fellow editors, to add the exact same unsourced statements of opinion to the article ] and related articles asserting, bizarrely and without evidence or corroboration, either that Zelda is pictured ''with a red rose in her hand'' in Zelda II or that Zelda II is ''Nintendo's Sleeping Beauty''. This is despite open opposition to this behaviour from all other editors of the material in question who have expressed a view, who oppose the addition as a consequence of the nature of this statement as a statement of personal interpretation, not based on any canonical (game manuals, sprites) or pseudo-canonical (Nintendo Power, the Zelda comic books, etc.) material associated with the topic. | |||
| As you are apparently unwilling to engage other editors on this topic (comments on ], ] and this page have received no response on your part) and have refused to offer an explanation for whatever view it is you hold on this addition, for which no other editors can find any underlying reasoning, I'm compelled to assume you are merely editing in bad faith. Per ], "adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism". However, you have now added this personal opinion, original research, or whatever it may be, to the pages in question dozens of times. And as you have removed from this page comments on the topic, other editors have come to interpret your actions as Vandalism. | |||
| If you do not intend to edit in good faith, please cease to edit the articles in question. --] 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:57, 31 December 2006
Unspecified source for Image:RNCReaganTribute.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RNCReaganTribute.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Khatru2 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Federal election issues article
Hi there. I saw you made some edits to Issues in the Canadian federal election, 2006 a while back. I'm proposing this article be deleted under prod because it's entirely obsolete, and hasn't had any human edits since April. Just wanted to let you know, in case you think it's worth saving. -Joshuapaquin 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
==Overlord meme==
Thanks for following through on the redirect of Overlord meme to Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons. However, you forgot to add the info (effectively merging) to the new article. I went ahead and added the Overlord meme info. Sparsefarce 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Editing in Bad Faith
Over the past few months, you have continued, through dozens of reverts by at least four different fellow editors, to add the exact same unsourced statements of opinion to the article Zelda II: The Adventure of Link and related articles asserting, bizarrely and without evidence or corroboration, either that Zelda is pictured with a red rose in her hand in Zelda II or that Zelda II is Nintendo's Sleeping Beauty. This is despite open opposition to this behaviour from all other editors of the material in question who have expressed a view, who oppose the addition as a consequence of the nature of this statement as a statement of personal interpretation, not based on any canonical (game manuals, sprites) or pseudo-canonical (Nintendo Power, the Zelda comic books, etc.) material associated with the topic.
As you are apparently unwilling to engage other editors on this topic (comments on Talk:Princess Zelda, Talk:Zelda II: The Adventure of Link and this page have received no response on your part) and have refused to offer an explanation for whatever view it is you hold on this addition, for which no other editors can find any underlying reasoning, I'm compelled to assume you are merely editing in bad faith. Per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, "adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism". However, you have now added this personal opinion, original research, or whatever it may be, to the pages in question dozens of times. And as you have removed from this page comments on the topic, other editors have come to interpret your actions as Vandalism.
If you do not intend to edit in good faith, please cease to edit the articles in question. --Yst 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)