User talk:Evianboy

Wentz article

You have got to wrong person because I have only erased the Wentz article because I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. Check the history, please, especially this edit from March 14:

(cur) (last)  19:32, 14 March 2006 Spuddy 17 (the whole scandal section is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. let it die, people.)

Thanks. Spuddy 17 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented a reasoned justification for why the Scandal section belongs on this article. Many encyclopedia articles contain controversy or scandal sections, especially in cases where those incidents are a part of the individual's notability, which is the case here. I asked, two edits below yours, that nobody remove the section without arguing against my justifications in the talk page, and you did just that. Please do not remove information without discussing in appropriate in the talk page. -VJ 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the Peter Wentz article. If you would like to continue discussing the inclusion of the Scandal section, please do so on the talk page. Thanks. -VJ 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -VJ 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -VJ 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Wentz

Evianboy, I understand that you are frustrated that the nudity scandal is being included in the article on Pete Wentz . It seems mean-spirited and gossipy. However, if you peruse the articles of just about everyone, you will find the good is included with the bad. NOt all things that happen to a person are fair or pleasant, but in an encyclopedia, most events of a persons life are up for grabs, especially if the event was famous (or even infamous). "If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Even if you totally disagree, Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavor, and part of making it work is (1) following the policy of the community and (2) coming to decisions based on consensus. Your conduct in relation to this issue has not done neither. And this is why you are being threatened with being banned from wikipedia. Typically, reverting something three times in one day, is grounds for blocking. While you have not done that, you have taken out that section (reverted) a total of eight times! That is not acceptable. I am not recommending you to be banned right now, because I'm trying to give you a chance. But if you revert that section again, you will probably be blocked.--Esprit15d 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Emily Dickinson] link

I did not claim that the link you added was vandalism, just that it was thoroughly unnecessary and apparent linkspam. There are already links aplenty in the article to sites containing many more of Dickinson's works; there's no need at all for one more link to one more ad-bearing site with a few of her (public domain) works. Also, please sign your comments (using four tildes) and refrain from deleting vandal warnings from your User talk page. Thanks. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Laungani_wiki.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Laungani_wiki.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Rettetast (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Michael Laungani

I have nominated Michael Laungani, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Laungani. 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. DarkAudit (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Tstephen.jpg

The file File:Tstephen.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]