User talk:Wikieditor1988

Welcome!

Hello, Wikieditor1988, 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! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dunham[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Jeff Dunham, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Double standard[edit]

First, saying anything is a double standard is potentially controversial, so it needs to be referenced by a reliable source, preferably where an expert in the field specifically calls it that. I say that it is your opinion, because wrestling is nothing like movies or television shows, because they do not portray themselves as real (except for reality TV, but that is a different topic altogether). Thus, why would they be "criticized as fake" when it has never been thought that they were anything but fake? Wrestling is criticized for being fake because it has a history of portraying itself as a legitimate sport (with championships being won or lost), no matter if most people know now that it isn't real. That's why it isn't comparable, and that's why it is your opinion that it is a double standard. Nikki♥311 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete it. Any sentence without a source can be challenged and removed. Nikki♥311 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: this[edit]

Chinese whispers? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I just thought you'd like to know the answer to the question you asked at Talk:Gossip (although it was a bit of a late response). In Britain, the game you described is Chinese whispers, but it might have other names elsewhere. The blue "this" link leads to the question you asked on 12 July. I guess you got the wrong end of the stick! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009[edit]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Bob Barker. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Sovereign immunity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DKqwerty (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check your info before adding false info like you did at Royal Rumble. For example, in the 2005 match, WWE does NOT consider Michaels to have eliminated himself. They consider him to be eliminated by Kurt Angle [1]. TJ Spyke 01:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cledus T. Judd[edit]

If you had looked a little further in the article, you would see that there was already a cited sentence in "Musical styles" referring to him as the "Weird Al Yankovic of country music." Intros don't need citations, as they are meant to summarize major points in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)}`

Re: redirect[edit]

Anyone can redirect a page that doesn't meet WP:N at any time. How does Pop (professional wrestling) meet notability guidelines? Only controversial merges/redirects need to be discussed, but since you oppose it, I have no problem discussing it. Nikki♥311 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of all of that. However, the term "pop" hasn't been the subject of any reliable third party publications, which is what it needs to pass the notability guideline. In addition, see WP:NOTDICTIONARY as to why having separate articles for definitions of terms is not desirable. Nikki♥311 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia a long time, and I've never seen Ignore All Rules ever argued successfully. I don't think I'll put up an AfD notice, but I've started a discussion at Talk:Pop (professional wrestling)#proposal to redirect. Feel free to voice your opinion. Nikki♥311 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Nakon 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy[edit]

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia[edit]

Your edit to Objection (law) has been reverted. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please check your computer's security to make sure it hasn't been compromised. I highly recommend running antivirus and antispyware software like Norton Internet Security 2010. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Legends of the Hidden Temple. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Disney edits[edit]

Greetings. I've noticed your recent edits to the articles for Mulan and Beauty and the Beast, and while I believe you're working in good faith, the details you added were extraneous to the plot and also speculative. In the case of Beauty and the Beast, your speculation is indeed the most likely scenario, but ultimately it's up to the viewer to make that decision, if it's even one necessary to make for the purposes of the story. For example, if Belle or Maurice had said/suggested that she had gotten her love of books from her mother, then it might be more important. As presented, however, it's more fan minutiae than anything.

In the case of Mulan, the only stated reason for Fa Zhou's refusal to pursue Mulan is that she would be killed if he exposed her (well, that, and the visual cues that he's partially disabled, and really wouldn't be able to give chase anyway). Your edit made it sound as if Fa Zhou thought she had a chance to survive, which is not presented in any way, shape or form in the film.

In the future, please be careful at adding too many plot details, especially ones that are based mainly on your own interpretation of the film. It should be up to the viewer to make a determination as to a character's motivations if the filmmakers don't already provide that reason elsewhere in the film. Further, per WP:FILMS, plot summaries should be relatively short and stick to the main story. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave them on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing!

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikieditor1988. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Nickelodeon GUTS, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 18:19, 21 May 2011 (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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]