A tag has been placed on File:Moose high rez slimed ycdtotv.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Hey I missed the chance to contest this, as it was already deleted by the time I noticed, but I was/am the copyright owner of the image, much like my other file that was deleted, and just botched the tagging/labeling when I uploaded the images. I then couldn't figure out how to correct them, nor delete them (I am still sort of new at this) so missed out on correcting the error. But I appreciate Wikipedia's policy and the users and bots who help make it stand, and by incorrectly tagging and labeling my images, I absolutely deserved to get my files deleted, as it appeared they were in violation of the copyright terms, so that's on me, and I apologize for the mistake.Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mia Khalifa, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. See WP:RS. John from Idegon (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Hi! I cited a reliable source with both of my original edits. The first one was a video interview, and the second one was a Guardian article. I've read through the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and am not sure what I did incorrectly regarding the aforementioned edits/sources. If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what the issue was with the two sources I provided? I'm still learning a bit in terms of editing around here, so just wanna make sure I understand what I did wrong in order to not do it in the future. Thanks! P.S. I liked the Tip of the Day feature on your userpage!! Am definitely adding that to mine! (Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Please read WP:RS. The Guardian is a tabloid and I have no idea what the other source is, but it's certainly not reliable. John from Idegon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Whoa. Did not know The Guardian became a tabloid! Appreciate the heads up on that and will certainly not use the paper as a source now in the future. I've read WP:RS in the past and am not 100% sure what constitutes a reliable source video-wise in terms of an interview with/of the actual person (will try to find more detail on that), but will certainly take your word on the second source not meriting reliability, as I've done the diligence to see that you're much more experienced here and do great work as an editor. Thanks for the response and for your edits. (Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

The article Brooklyn Chase has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Yet another porn BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or legitimate assertion of notability

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Hi I just noticed this proposal for deletion and wanted to ask what type of sources or information would be required to justify not deleting the page. I tried to model it after other adult pages that I found on Wikipedia, but I'm also still sort of new at editing/creating pages, so perhaps I missed a key component? Please let me know if there's a good example to look to, or any specifics you found to be missing, and I can try to improve the page. Cheers,Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to The Bourne Ultimatum (film) have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. 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. DonIago (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Ahh I did not realize IMDb was considered a questionable source. Thanks for the heads up! I'll find a better/original source for the script doctor tidbit and redo the edit. Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! DonIago (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Andrew Bynum, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Hi, I appreciate you dropping a line regarding the Andrew Bynum edit, however I believe you're mistaken, as I provided a source to support my edit, and therefore it was not original research. If you believe that the source provided isn't reliable for some reason, please let me know, and I will happily provide a different one. The incident I cited in my edit was widely covered in the NBA that year, so finding an additional source to support it would not be too much of a problem. Thanks,Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theonewhoisseveral. Thanks for discussing this, and sorry that I was not clearer. The words "tarnished" and "frustrated" were not supported. That aside, the event itself might go against WP:NOTDIARY. Did other sources observe this? This doesn't seem on par with his 3-pointer against the Warriors the next season. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Oooh good call, the reactions aren't covered in the linked source. I gotta find the podcast where Matt Barnes talked about Phil's reaction and the team's response (if I remember correctly, there was some disciplining at the next practice). Will see if I can find it. Cheers,Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I while a ago I see that you edited articles that I created, I wanted to let you know I like the job that you did. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]