User talk:Scorpio95

July 2009

Thank you for your interest in improving wikipedia. Unfortunately your additions have been reverted: you have to provide references from valid sources for all added information and especially for opinions, see wikipedia:Attribution and WP:CITE policies. See also wikipedia:Welcome page for other rules of editing. - Altenmann >t 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Going commando has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw "bukkake" and reflex-reverted. *sheepish look* J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Upskirt, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry didn't know will do that from now on, thanks

Second warning

Please don't add information without providing proper citations. PLease take a look into some good aicles with many footnotes and learn how to do this. - Altenmann >t 07:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if it is general knowledge and there are no citations? Not in books etc

Then sorry, it cannot be in wikipedia. This is the rule: only information published in reliable sources can be added to wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically people are reliable sources so why does it have to be published?

No, they are not. People joke, lie, err, vandalize wikipedia pages... Just read the rules I mentioned above and follow them. - Altenmann >t 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then if people aren't reliable sources how can stuff that is published be reliable??? How do you know that the sources are real??? I think you need to change the rules on this Why haven't you replied?

For the last time, please read, understand and follow the policies I listed in my first post here. This is not a chat room: this is a project to create an encyclopedia. - Altenmann >t 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing

Please read wikipedia:Vandalism, understand it, and don't use this term for the edits you don't like. - Altenmann >t 21:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please read "Frequently Asked Questions" in User talk:SineBot. - Altenmann >t 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elite tv

A tag has been placed on Elite tv, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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. mhking (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is non-sourced, and has no verifiable independent links -- if those can be provided, I'll happily recant my speedy deletion request. --mhking (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the official website link to the article--Scorpio95 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We had no verifiable independent links. It looked like an ad for a YouTube channel or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did it look like an ad for a YouTube channel there was no mention of YouTube in the article. Did you actually look at the article?--Scorpio95 11:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. The only "source" was a link to a sex site (or so my internet filter informed me). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official site for that channel. So how does that warrant you to delete it? --Scorpio95 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Shelf TV

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Top Shelf TV, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Paul Raymond TV. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]