Welcome!

Hello, Barneystimpleton, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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! J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on Victoria Justice, and please be aware of the three revert rule. You were initially trying to replace the lead image with a different image which lacked suitable copyright information; these edits were reverted as Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and so images of uncertain copyright status/provenance cannot be used. You are now removing the lead image for no apparent reason at all; edit warring is really not acceptable, and, if you continue, you may be blocked from editing. You are welcome to make your case on the article's talk page if you feel that the article would be better off with no image at all. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the image you keep using has been released under a free license. This is your last warning- please stop edit warring over this issue. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Matt Bennett, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Matt Bennett has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of significant coverage from reliable source. Also no evidence of major roles; according to IMDB appearance in Victorious was only for one episode.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. snigbrook (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you reply to my comments here, thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of edits you are making are not going to fly. You need to discuss these things before reverting over and over. Beach drifter (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. MTV is a proper source for the Justin Bieber article. Candyo32 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MTV is not a reliable source for such a thing. Barneystimpleton (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may not have had a chance to read many of wikipedias guidelines yet, but a few a very important. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means readers need to be able to verify information has already been published by a reliable source. Please read those links and you will understand why your edits are reverted. Beach drifter (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Bennett. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Note that this warning has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your edit there constitutes "retaliation", rather than discussion, of the tag. Also note it applies to the other articles where your edits are rapidly being reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't happen if you would stop vandalising the pages. Barneystimpleton (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you didn't read any of the links I gave you. I suggest you do, and try to learn how this project works, or you won't be around very long. Beach drifter (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Matt Bennett, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ttonyb (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Matt Bennett, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bennett. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1991. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Justin Bieber. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refrain from further edits to the article. However, please do participate in the discussion at Talk:Justin Bieber. Since consensus there is that the birthdate is supported elsewhere, further discussion is the only way to move forward. Continuing to edit war will only result in your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHOUT SOURCES. Which is what I've been trying to say, but Arthur and the other people continue to stay on their high horse. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is a source cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you removed it here remember? Beach drifter (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barneystimpleton for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ttonyb (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to 1991, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ttonyb (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalise. I was told there were only going to be internationally known people in there, henceforth I removed non-internationally known ones. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - Vianello (Talk) 03:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..I wasnt. I was told only people known internationally would go on pages like that, so I complied. I'm not trying to prove any points. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you told that? I see you trying to assume that's the case from your edit summaries, but I don't see any such statement made by another editor to you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a coincidence that this followed your own edits being removed, then? - Vianello (Talk) 03:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You know exactly where he was told this. And here's an example: example NavalExpanse (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote the aforementioned policy page. "If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content... Do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. Do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page." Going on a removal spree as an (over)reaction to someone else's opinion is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. If this really were simply an issue of enforcing some consensus-agreed-upon policy, the mass removal would have been completely non-contentious, I think. Of course, there's always the chance, as said, this was truly just a good faith implementation of a perceived policy. It doesn't matter either way to me. You know what happened, you know not to do, and that's all I really ask. - Vianello (Talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Justin Bieber. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 - Vianello (Talk) 04:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ttonyb (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did I in ANY WAY vandalise? That's just making me feel even more that you are that other user, and you're trying to get me blocked. Barneystimpleton (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably enhancing the description even as I ask, but what evidence do you have that File:VJWTB.jpg was released into the public domain? —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:VJWTB.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://twitpic.com/186uj6. As a copyright violation, File:VJWTB.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:VJWTB.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:VJWTB.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:VJWTB.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:VJWTB.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't publishing a non-copyrighted image on a site like that be public domain? Barneystimpleton (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per the Twitpic terms of service, copyright remains with the uploader. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. AIV is shorthand for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You were reported there for vandalism and I declined to act on it as you understandably felt upset about the sock case. But you still should not have gone off at Arthur Rubin like that - Alison ^❤ 05:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your addition to the article - Ariana Grande. I want to make sure you understand the reasoning behind everyone removing it. Recent years such as 1994 are reviewed against the criteria in WP:RY. I understand you are adamant about adding this person to the article, so I would suggest you add a comment in the talk page of 1994 and get consensus that adding the person is in concert with the purpose of the article. Until you get consensus, you risk reversal, and ultimately engaging in edit warring. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]