Hello, TPIRFanSteve, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wikilinked twice to Balance Game 1984 in the current Balance Game article. Why? Wikider 09:13 11 February 2006
However, one should be chosen, per the manual of style, fifth bullet. Also, I will let you take care of this because you understand TPIR better, the introduction on the article Contestants' Row needs to be copyedited for word flow whenever you have the chance. Cheers, --wpktsfs17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that page reads the way it does now in order to preserve edits made last night following a copy-paste move to One Bid. I'm waiting for that page to be speedied so I can move it there properly. -TPIRFanSteve17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for edit summary
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 40% for major edits and 75% for minor edits. (Based on the last 102 major and 8 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An odd case. This fellow features mechaincal aspects and cybernetic-like mechanisms, yet in game he is depicted consuming organic foods usch as apple pie. Would Cyborg be a valid classification...? Or should I leave it as Unknown as before when I forst wrote the article...?-ZeroTalk18:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I was joking about "hell freezing over". I don't know whether Gh87 really has connections with Doug Davidson. If he did, that would be good. If not, then oh well. 71.111.215.22419:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When a sentence could refer to either a man or a woman, it is proper to use "he" to refer to said hypothetical person. On the other hand, it is never proper to use "they" in those circumstances, as "they" is by definition plural and cannot be used to refer to only one person. -TPIRFanSteve07:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that the color in the heading is too harsh (too much red), compared to other template boxes. I recommend changing the heading to a "soft" yellow or red (per the show's colors). Ideas? I'd make another change to a different color, but I don't want to be ridiculed. — Ian MankaTalk to me‼12:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed that you reverted the info I added about the one episode of the Price is Right that just aired that feauted a trip to New Orleans that was taped before Hurricane Katrina. Just letting you know I wasn't doing any vandalism or anything, just trying to help out by adding that the game played was 1 Right Price, and that the woman won, just in case anyone who missed the episode was curious. That's all. But if you figure otherwise, I guess that's OK then, too. Jgera513:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Digimon Systems Update
I noticed some of your edits on the Digimon related articles, and you seem to know a lot about the topic. Also, your edit summaries were helpful, and even cleared up some questions I've had in the back of my mind. There's a WikiProject for Digimon, WikiProject Digimon Systems Update, where editors who are knowledgeable about Digimon try to organize their efforts in improving Digimon articles. I think your input on the project would be very beneficial. There's no time requirements or real "membership", it's just sort of a place set aside for discussion that applies to a group of articles. So when ever you feel like it, check it out and give us your thoughts. Be sure to check out the talk page too, where most of the activity takes place. -- Ned Scott01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plinko revert
Please do not revert info I added to the plinko page about the least won with five chips. It was on todays episode (june 14th, 2006 when a guy won only $500 with five chips hitting four zeros ) and I have it on tape to prove that it is the case. He asked off screen what the record for the least won with five chips won in the game and it was revealed to him to be one women who won zero with five chips. You have a habit of reverting things that you don't like but that doesn't make it wrong to be there. I have todays episode on tape if I need to prove that it is an actual fact I will. But there is no reason to revert it and especialy without an explanation. If a problem over this triva fact presists we can bring it up with the proper people till a resolution is resolved. But please do not remove it as it has every right to be there even if you don't approve. It is a very nice bit of trivia to know and a worthy addition. Thank you. PantheraLeo02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bob makes up records all the time. This one certainly has a greater chance of being true than most of the others, but I don't know for certain that it is, and with all due respect, if I can't prove ot, I seriously doubt that you can. On the assumption that you have readded it, I'm taking it out again. -TPIRFanSteve03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes up? Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it was made up. Bob asked his records keeper for the actual info on it and he was told that. I have it on tape and will gladdly make and AVI up of it for you if you so need. And you can remove it and Ill add it back. We can keep doing this for days. I got nothing better to do. That's fine by me. PantheraLeo03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fine we will go with your compromise. I don't agree but fine. I think it is true though and it is an interesting fact to note. But ok you put an effort to be fair and thats as best a compromise as we can do here. PantheraLeo03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make it clear that The Price Is Right doesn't have a record book. No one there knows exactly how many times Plinko has been completely lost, how many times both showcases have been won, or how many times pretty much anything else has happened; even their count of perfect shows, which they do attempt to keep track of, isn't consistent. Bob even said on the air earlier this season that he makes the records up, so the fact that he said something happened some number of times doesn't make it true. -TPIRFanSteve03:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for jumping into an old discussion. I remember watching the episode where the woman hit five $0's. It was around 1997 or 1998, and I think I wrote a recap of it at the time for alt.tv.game-shows if anyone insists on documentation. Panthera, your statement contradicts itself: if she hit five $0's, how can the guy who hit $500 and four $0's have the record for the least won with five chips?
The reason I came in in the first place -- Steve, I've never seen the I in The Price "i"s (or Is) Right capitalized before. I noticed that you made an edit to the 1975 Wheel of Fortune page that I created. Just a comment, not a criticism, from another g-r.net member. JTRH00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "is" is always supposed to be capitalized when it's part of a proper noun. Not doing so is a very common mistake. -TPIRFanSteve04:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem?
I took the time to get some better quality images and replace them. This is not just your Wikipeida it is everyones. Just because something of yours gets changed or replaced is to be expected. It is progress and improvement. I am going to change the things back and I may report you as a vandal. Stop it! Cheesehead 198018:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.- CobaltBlueTony19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two people who have gotten pissed at me today, one of them was replacing good-quality images with low-quality images, and the other was editing information into Pathfinder (The Price is Right pricing game) that was laughably false. I see no reason not to undo such changes, as the former is pointless and the latter makes the article less accurate. -TPIRFanSteve22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to avoid getting into a revert war in the first place is to talk about your changes first on the talk pages, and even get consensus on your opinion before proceeding. - CobaltBlueTony12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stopped tagging the articles with the unsourced tags in the hope that you'll go through them and fix the references and the statements needing citations. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sue Anne04:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...what? Not only have I not removed any true information, you haven't replaced any. I have no idea what you're talking about. -TPIRFanSteve01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see what you did now. If you'll check Cheesehead's Talk page, you'll find the dates of five shows on which Pathfinder was played perfectly. If you want, I can even link you to recaps of them. -TPIRFanSteve03:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pricing games articles
How do feel about the article moves I am making. (I am wanting some feedback) — The King of Kings 02:03 June 24 '06
Well, I'm not sure some of the articles should necessarily be just the game's name or even the name plus "(game show)" (for instance, Shopping Spree, which I already moved to "Shopping Spree (The Price Is Right)", but once we figure out where everything should go and get all the redirects fixed, it probably won't hurt.
Actually, I'm more worried about the fact that someone seems to be creating copy/pasted versions of the articles with no edit histories. In fact, I just left a message about that on your Talk page. -TPIRFanSteve02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I'm not the one copying/pasting. ;-) I just saw your edit to Shopping spree. I didn't check for other articles named shopping spree since I knew there was probably an article on it somewhere, I didn't know about an alternate gameshow. I ran into that problem earlier with, I think, Temptation. I'll try to avoid that in the future. Thanks for the feedback. — The King of Kings 02:13 June 24 '06
Your UNSOURCED edits cannot be verified. So unless you can prove them with an actual reference you should not go changing things. PERIOD! Buckner 198623:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put in some interesting history behind some of the old games and I found out that you changed it.
You also took out my comment on Shell Game. Nickrj
Most of your edits were badly phrased (and I'm not completely sure I trust their accuracy, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), and your addition to Shell Game was just plain inane; no one gives a crap about whether Bob bounces the ball or not. -TPIRFanSteve00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I've always enjoyed Bob doing that whenever the game is played. Nickrj
Meat puppets are not acceptable replacements for sock puppets, nor do they give you very much credibility. I recommend strongly that you learn to deal with other editors on a more civil and trustworthy manner.
I can honestly say I have no idea who Plinky is. I've already admitted that I'm friends with Zinkin, but this new guy is...well, new. -TPIRFanSteve16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the behavior is very suspicious. Please allow for admins to clear things up. If you are being honest, you will fare better. - CobaltBlueTony16:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree that it looks suspicious from your standpoint. Honestly, I'm wondering who it is, myself. I don't intend to take it upon myself to find out, though. -TPIRFanSteve01:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm no one's sockpuppet; I know Steve, but he's not posting under my name or vice versa, and I was fed up with people degrading Steve's work with false information long before he said word one. That said, having dealt with similar issues in my work (I'm a network admin myself), I understand the need to investigate sock puppetry charges, no matter how baseless -- and since Steve and I are just under two hundred miles apart from one another, this is as baseless as it gets. I just hope that there's a mechanism in place to punish those who make accusations that they know are false. And memo to Buckner: the fact that a person who knows a lot about a subject corrects many, many people on it AND PROVIDES EVIDENCE doesn't make him wrong, and if being corrected with the proper information is enough to "drive someone away," the person who's "driven away" should question why he/she felt it necessary to make changes in the first place. (Oh, and I've no idea who "Plinky" is either.) --Dzinkin13:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why not, pray tell? And how are they any less reputable than a man who has admitted on national television that the "records" he talks about on the air are made up? -TPIRFanSteve23:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try you might, but you are not going to drive me away
What bullying? You're performing copy/paste moves, and that isn't the correct way to move a page. I'm sure you're not intending to cause trouble, but you are clearly in the wrong here. -TPIRFanSteve12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Price Is Right related articles - sourcing and other issues
Hello. I find the various articles related to The Price Is Right distressing as they seem to be unsourced, written for and by fans of the show, and have a definite WP:NPOV violating the Nationalistic bias clause. I would hardly consider a fan site for the show an accurate source of information, as it is unofficial. Such fansites tend to be filled with inaccurate and unverified information, much like message boards and usenet groups. An official source needs to be found for the information. Also, the disambiguation page that was up last night on The Price Is Right page would greatly help in removing the WP:NPOV Nationalistic bias problem, as it is very Nationalistic to think that anyone would just assume that the American version of The Price is Right is the be all and end all of the show. This would be a good case for disambiguation and moving the article that is there now to The Price Is Right (1972), as it would make things clearer and be consistant with the naming of articles. Respectfully submitted, Rekarb Bob16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the issues with using a fansite as a source. All I can do is tell you that I write the FAQ for Golden-Road.net and that I don't put information in that I don't feel I can verify; most date information is corroborated either by having seen the episodes in question myself, by other people who watched the shows in question and kept notes on them, or by tape or airdates provided onscreen when the episodes were reaired on Game Show Network. A large part of the goal of the site is to stop the kinds of rumors you are concerned about, although I can understand why someone not familiar with it might doubt that.
On this one, I stand behind TPIRFanSteve. Not to cause a further argument, but take the pricing game articles, for instance. Yeah, they're about the American versions (I understand some of the international versions vary in some way or another), but it is very clear that by watching the show you can see what the game rules are and what happens in the event of either a win or loss. I too understand that fansites sometimes are unreliable, but I have to wonder what kind of sourcing Rekarb Bob considers reputable? Time and again, CBS's Web site has been called into question, and so has Bob's "memory" as to notable achievements in a given game. As for the picture issue posted elsewhere on this userpage, I think a fair solution would have been to post both images on that particular pricing game's talk page, and then let us decide which photo is the better one; perhaps someone out there could have found an even better one. Finally, I respectfully ask that everyone involved with this issue take a time out and a deep breath, and discuss any further matters related to the wiki-TPiR and its related wikipages on the appropriate talk pages. [[Briguy5274812:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Response
Meh, that's okay. I just should have read more closely to what was being discussed. However, I don't know if that anon was insinuating that the opposition to the move were all supposedly your socks, which I obviously cannot be. Ryulong05:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he's just attempting to warn other people about me -- which I suppose would be alright if there were actually anything to warn them about, but there's not. -TPIRFanSteve05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Broken redirect
You recently created the page BlackTailmon, which reads in its entirety "#REDIRECT [[BlackTailmon]]". (You'd be surprised how often this happens!) I can't figure out what article you were trying to reference. Please fix this if you can. --Russ Blau(talk)00:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er...yeah. I really hope I can get away with not having that Sockpuppet thing up now (I hope it's clear by this point that the accusations were false), but aside from that...I'm gonna blank it again. -TPIRFanSteve02:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does end up putting that sock stuff again, tell them it's your page and they have no right to post things you don't want on your page.
Gee, I don't think asking another user to help defend you on these forums is sockpuppetry, although TPIRFanSteve probably doesn't need any help. In any case, I can say he's a legitimate user. I also populate the golden-road.net Web site, and he is a frequent contributor. As for the sockpuppetry issue, I second the thoughts of Lambertman. It's time for Buckner 1986 to either provide proof that TPIRFanSteve has used sockpuppets (which may be pretty hard as it is) or give Steve the benefit of the doubt, pull in his horses and move on. [[Briguy5274812:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Stack the Deck
I heard this new game is coming out, do you have any details?
No, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. I don't like to know too much about new games until I can actually watch them on the air. -TPIRFanSteve01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the pages you brought to my attention, and explained my reasoning at at ANI and on Buckner 1986's talkpage. I've also, as you already know, removed the "suspected sockpuppet" tags from where they shouldn't have been. For what it's worth, I appreciate the motivation behind this sort of message, but in hindsight it didn't turn out to be very helpful — I think this is a case where admin intervention would have been helpful earlier. Ah, well, it's settled (I hope?) now. Please don't hesitate to contact me &mdsah; or any one of nine hundred admins :-) — if you need anything, and I'll see what we can do. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Those aren't all accurate airdates (and I know for certain that one isn't) -- some of those are just approximate dates that he puts in because his tables won't work properly if some date isn't entered. You've done nothing wrong, though. -TPIRFanSteve00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I would like to compliment you on keeping all pages Price-related neat, organized, and in concise fashion. Well, I gotta keep an eye out for vandals. Keep up the good work, though. --D.F. Williams 03:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I and every other staffer I discussed the article with thought it was a fanboyish piece of junk that, if anything, took too long to be deleted. -TPIRFanSteve22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the old article. It has everything to do with the fact that golden-road.net does not meet the notability requirements. Hatch6804:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of Stack the Deck?
Have you watched the Stack the Deck pricing game yet? The first part where the contestant is asked which prize is $X is suspicious. You know. Bob asks if Prize A or Prize B is $2.99. I have never see even one contestant get one of those choices wrong. So each contestant ends up winnings all three of the numbers they can win. What you do you think is going on there? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do I think is going on? I think you're looking for reasons to criticize the show. Have some freakin' faith that they aren't discriminating against people or rigging things. -TPIRFanSteve15:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was assuming the show goes to great lengths to be legit. However, I don't believe they are being succesful avoiding potentional lawsuits. In the case of Stack the Deck, all they would have to do is display all six prices on TV. -Will Pittenger07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1.) That certainly isn't what you made it sound like.
There is 100% proof to when Triple Play is played. I know that, you know that, every Price Is Right loyal viewer knows that. Just watch the show very carefully and you'll know when Triple Play is going to be played. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.108.222 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That's not the point. No normal person cares about predicting what the next pricing game is going to be. I have no intention of leaving that in the article if you've re-added it. -TPIRFanSteve23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colombian Price is Right
Bonjour TPIRFanSteve !
Thank you for reviewing my English which is not always good!
I'm a big fan of TPIR, I discovered everything in the wrong order: I first discovered Colombian TPIR as a young boy in my natal country and afterwards I discovered the original US TPIR via cable TV in Colombia.
I've been living in France for almost seven years now and every time I go to the US I watch TPIR, for me it's the best TV Show ever and I will really miss it after Bob Barker retires (I'm also a big fan of him and have even collected most of the Miss Universe Pageants he hosted).
Colombian TPIR was not very generous, but it was funny (mostly because of the triqui-traque feature). US TPIR is funny, generous and very entertaining. Nothing to do with the now discontinued French Juste Prix which was completely dull. But the game which replaced it (Attention à la Marche) is even worse.
As you are aware, I'm trying to clean up some of the references and smooth out or remove sections that are uninformative or too trivial. I know you watch this and the other TPIR articles like a hawk. I'm assuming that you have found these edits constructive, as I have only seen some minor tweaking from you on this work. The article has changed significantly, and I am hoping to have this promoted to GA or maybe even FA before Barker retires. I would like to renom for peer review, but I want to make sure there is a solid, stable article in place. Any ideas what there is left to tackle? Please pass along to anyone else who you know has contributed, and in the next day or so, I will post a similar note to the article's talk page. Comments, criticisms? —Twigboy05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for good article. Keep your fingers crossed. Oh, and to answer your question: I don't have AIM/ICQ/iChat/Y!M/MSN — my life's full enough without adding to it. Give my regards to the left side of the state. —Twigboy22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand Game Cue.
I just want to clear something up.
In regards to:
(I seriously doubt you know the name of that cue...and I doubt that *that* is its name, because it was used on The Price Is Right first.)
First off: How do you know the actual theme was used on The Price Is Right first? It was a MORE ELABORATE version of the cue. It's not the actual cue.
Second: *That* *is* its name. Still don't believe? This site has it all: http://gsthemes.freehostia.com/nam.html
I don't mean to be rude, I'm just clearing something up.
I'd like to thank you for "following me around" the pricing game cleanup I've been doing. I'm sorta sitting down to do them in blocks of a dozen or so. Your edits are helpful after the fact. Two things I will note: re: you above discussion on this page, it is actually an accepted writing technique to use "they" as a hypothetical person, and more gender sensitive (particularly since TPIR equally has male and female contestants - perhaps even more woman than men. It's called singular they, and it is one of those things in English that is both accepted by some, and rejected by others (like the serial comma, for example). I have changed most of the articles I've edited to be "they" instead of "he", as well as present tense, instead of past tense (I have only been doing active games so far). I also wanted to note that most of what you're editing (eg: the bonus game being replaced by the shell game) were the same trivia that have been there for a long time. I just put it into the body of text instead of point form. I'm adding virtually no new information to these articles. Just cleaning them up.
The other thing I want to mention is, that while the articles are generally well written, and your edits after mine have been good, the one problem is that there is no citation. "Shell Game is now known to have been created specifically to replace Bonus Game" - this is great, but if you don't cite it, how does anyone know that this is in fact true? Almost none of the games I've edited have citation for this sort of fact, which it really ought to. A few of the trivia bits I've deleted have been the kind of thing that really would need citation to stay in as anything other than trivia.
My only problem with your uncitation is issues like the Clock Game issue. I believe you when you say that you have never heard of the Clock Game being reshot because of someone calling out the price. But if someone else claimed they had never heard of the producers creating the shell game specifically to replace bonus game, even though you knew it was true, wouldn't you try to add it back? If noone cites, it's just one person's recollection vs. another's. Whose to say that just because you haven't heard of it, that the person who added it to the article hadn't seen it himself. You have to be careful of those issues of not-generally-known facts without citation, unfortunately. TheHYPO05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again
Thanks for the typo cleanup and jerk-reverting on the latest batch of articles. You'd be surprised how many times I've CAUGHT myself swapping prices and prizes. And a few still slip through. It's annoying to type "the prices of the prizes" over and over again! TheHYPO05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bob
I'm guessing that the Barker article is going to get hit hard by those who want to put a finishing date on Bob's hosting run. Just letting you know that I'm watching it like a hawk. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo!04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have to disagree. No one, including Barker, is employed as the host of The Price Is Right right now. I've edited Barker's page to say as much, although I won't push the issue if it gets changed back. -TPIRFanSteve04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosie O'Donnell as potential Price as Right host
hi, I added back the section about Rosie as a _possible_ host for the show. The section is small as has a good source. Even if you don't agree the section should stay at least until someone else is maned as host. If you have a ref to indicate that she won't be considered then that could be included. Benjiboi01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I guessed you might have some insider info! In any case as soon as a different host (assuming not Rosie) is announced the section could probably be reduced to a sentence as part of post-The View plans but until then I suggest leaving as is. Benjiboi02:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are going to delete all TPIR pricing game articles
The are nominating all TPIR pricing game articles up for deletion - because "they don't have reliable sources". See here.
Personal information: (alleged) name of User:Hdayejr
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.
If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, includingyou.
This is just to remind you that I don't need to know other editors' real or alleged names if I warn someone. Your intent was probably not to annoy, threaten, or harass, but names should never be posted on Wikipedia. User:Hdayejr is getting the same notice for posting your alleged or real name and perhaps some others. Please follow the steps outlined above so that names can be removed from the database. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an essay about trolling which may be of interest to you. Calling another user a troll may be an example of a personal attack.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'll comply since it's the rules of the site, although I can't say I feel the editor in question deserves any such consideration. -TPIRFanSteve02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I don't really care what the actions of any people were outside of Wikipedia. My job here is to attempt to keep discussion on Wikipedia about Wikipedia and its content, not about the merits (or demerits) of users on other sites. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User TPIRFanSteve has not deleted the old versions of the pages with my name on them and I'd like action taken, thanks Hdayejr01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, yes, I have -- except for the old ones you dug up today that I wasn't even aware still existed, seeing as they were part of a page that appeared to have been completely deleted. Given that you asked Ian for help getting them deleted earlier today, and given that you found the pages yourself and have the address that needs to be e-mailed in order to get pages removed, I can't really say I understand why you're now attempting to dump this on me (at least, other than the fact that you hate me). -TPIRFanSteve01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...or then again, maybe the people who I've been asking to delete these things just haven't followed the requests properly. Yet another e-mail has been sent; hopefully, it'll get done right this time.
I really wonder sometimes why I bother with this site. I certainly don't enjoy having to defend my reputation from you in front of a group of people most of whom I don't even care about. -TPIRFanSteve02:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps I wouldn't have considered you a reasonable suspect had you not threatened to kill me and Dave Zinkin in the past. But yeah, my fault, of course. -TPIRFanSteve21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your libel and slander above about "threatning to kill you" has already been sent to that address for you to enjoy your editing block. Enjoy the summer! :D Hdayejr14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I stop trying to show the world that you're a jerk, will ya stop harassing me? 'Cause this is really getting tedious, and I don't want to deal with it any longer. -TPIRFanSteve02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I thought this mess was behind us, we get started again. I'll try and clean up whatever other edits need oversight. I must stress -- please do not make libelous or threatening comments against another user.
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm sorry, but I have to say something about this. This entire thing is about people, not content. I understand site policy, and I don't want this to drag on any longer, but you've got to admit that given these circumstances, that's a pretty unhelpful suggestion. -TPIRFanSteve02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but you're serious when you said that they make those stats up on the spot? I'm sorry; I didn't know, or else I wouldn't have added that statement. I'm sorry. Ksy92003(talk)04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It's a common mistake...Bob himself actually said on the air once that "some people actually believe we know what we're talking about." :-)
There's only a very small number of stats that they really keep on-hand, and most of them involve either Golden Road, Plinko, or the Showcase. -TPIRFanSteve23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Fact is there are some records that The Dob has and Steve has tried to say they don't exist. Hdayejr14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda like how you just tore up the Rich Apuzzo page. I think you and Orangmike are probably the one and the same...it's checkuser time! You were warned weeks ago to stop. Hdayejr23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really strange that you undid my undo 5 minutes after the fact. I think Orangemike is your "sockpuppet"....????? Cya on the flip side of the ban!Hdayejr23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VANDALISM
You really want off here, dont you? I've already posted the incident on the incident board and you still are keeping it up? Hdayejr23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is you are stalking me and other users. How would you even know about Rich all the way up there in PA anyhow? You must have me on the "watch" list and you know you are a stalker back to ATGS! Hdayejr23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to know, I found him in your contribution history when I went to see if you'd decided to flame me on any userpages besides mine. -TPIRFanSteve00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the admission above. You just confirmed my theory of you being a stalker. At least you told the truth this time! Hdayejr00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hdayejr may blank comments from his page if he wishes; you should not edit war with him there. Your contributions on his are serving only to inflame the issue, and are continuing an off-wiki dispute that does not belong there or on any other Wikipedia page. Hdayejr is blocked for a week; please leave him alone. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you're essentially telling me that Hdayejr can say whatever he wants about me on his Talk page and I'm not allowed to do anything about it. While I'll do my best to keep silent, I hope you can understand how that may not sound like the most appealing course of action from my perspective. -TPIRFanSteve01:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he say somthing about you on his talk page that you are unhappy about, just tell one of the 4 admins who have been dealing with the situation. There is never any need for you to edit war over someone elses talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The offending edits already been deleted and purged from the history; this is what was left behind. You will see a break in the diffs here. Personally identifiable information was posted by another sock which is now blocked as well.—Twigboy04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider if you could archive your long older discussions into another page. Here is the helpful link you need.
Also, be considerate about the list of retired games and the individual articles of them because the "merge" discussions resulted in no consensus, even if it's not official by Wikipedians. Thank you for your time! --Gh8720:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help!
Steve, this is ILoveBonusGame, Nathan Harkins. I cannot contact anyone at Golden-road.net without logging in, and I can't do that on account of the fact that I have yet to receive a confirmation e-mail about activating my account with my updated e-mail address! I have tried this since about 4 PM and have yet to receive an e-mail, and since I don't know anyone's user name that is here on Wiki, I thought I should pass this along to you in hopes of letting Robert or Marc know about the problem. I have tried 2 different e-mail accounts now and it still hasn't come through. KansasCity06:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TPIR
You're the one I hoped would answer me. :) I appreciate it, although I am still reeling from the fact that even with the eps being aired out of order, that the production numbers didn't at least follow in sequence of order recorded. Lambertman13:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New infobox idea
Hello Steve. My name is Mitchazenia and I have a good idea for the TPIR games pages. I have an infobox prepared in my 9th Sandbox for the games consisting of Debut date, Debut number, Retired date, Retired reason, Seasons and Staging. If there's anymore you can think of, tell me. I hope you enjoy this idea. Note: I had troubles for pictures, so that'll have to wait.Mitch32contribs19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist flood
Appologies in advance for flooding your watchlist (I assume) with edits - I'm doing a cleanup of my own watchlist with AWB (it catches a lot of wiki code errors), and I'm sure it will flood your watch page for the day. Sorry TheHYPO18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Price is Right
User 71.63.42.172 wants to apoligize to you for (seemingly) ticking you off when re-adding information that you didn't approve of. I want you to know that I am just a kid (15), and am a big "Price is Right" fan like you are. The only reason I added information was because I had seen it on the Price is Right before. By the way, I like your timeline on golden-road.net. It helps me find out when events occured. I wish I knew when Penny Ante's newest color scheme changed so I could edit that in, but it is no good to put information that we don't know wheather it is true or not. Send me a message back when you recieve this. I would really like to hear from you back.-71.63.42.172 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is user 71.63.42.172 (my name is Corey by the way). I would like to know if anyone else besides you can update your timeline on golden-road.net, and if so, do we have to be registered? I look forward to hearing from you. Merry Christmas.-71.63.42.172 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only people who can edit the FAQ are myself and the site admins, and I can only think of two occasions in four and a half years where either of them has changed something. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is user 71.63.42.172 again. Are you angry because I asked you that last question? I am sorry if I have offended you, but I think it's interesting to know where people you meet online live. I thought you lived in Brockton, Massachausetts, because I looked up your name on phonebook.com, and you were the only Steve Gavazzi in there. I know your last name, because I have been looking to see who has edited your timeline, and it says your first and last name on there. Would you mind telling me where you do live? (all you have to give me is the city and state) I won't give you any trouble about it. Merry Christmas!-71.63.42.172 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not a blooper archive" means exactly what it sounds like -- the pricing game articles don't need to chronicle every blooper that's ever occurred.
I believe I've made it quite clear that there are NO circumstances under which you or anyone else would be allowed to edit the FAQ. Please stop asking -- the answer isn't going to change.
You know, I really don't give a rat's ass what your opinion of it is. If the FAQ could be edited by anyone, it would end up with all kinds of stupid shit in it. The Price articles here on Wikipedia are more than ample proof of that.
Hey, buddy. It's me again (user: 71.63.42.172). Just kidding about the title there. I hope you had a nice Christmas holiday. I am sorry about not signing the talk page edits correctly. TheHYPO told me that it is considered bad practice not to sign your talk page posts, so I have learned my lesson there. On golden-road.net's timeline, what is wrong with the weeks on Season 36?. The episodes seem to be airing out of order.-71.63.42.172 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CBS is airing the shows out of order, presumably so that they can show "stronger" episodes on days they want to. Hopefully, it won't last much longer. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my user page, but I wonder what these posts have to do with improving Wikipedia. Really, if you have comments about another forum, it should belong in that forum.—Twigboy (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have I been creeping you out because I have been wanting to know where you live? Or what? I hope I didn't worry you that much. Tell you what, i'll do us both a favor and not bring up the subject about where you live anymore. How does that sound?-71.63.42.172 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How do you like Drew Carey as the new host of the Price is Right? I think it was much better when Bob Barker was hosting it, but I think he deserves to be retired, don't you think so?-71.63.42.172 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a very clear message: Please use this space to discuss Wikipedia articles and not the topics or personal details of the editors. Thank you.—Twigboy (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Steve. I just wrote a new article today — eggcrate display — and was wondering if you or someone you know from gr.net has any photographs that we could have freely licensed and use to illustrate it. (I think there was a closeup in the Golden Gallery of the Magic # prop in storage backstage, which would probably do the trick.) Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you thinking I can help, but I don't own the site or the images. You'll want to get in touch with Marc Green (Marc) or John Sly (ClockGameJohn) about this. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A message from your favorite user
Hey, buddy. It's me again (User: 71.63.42.172). On the list of active pricing games, if "Barker's Markers" name is changed to "Make your Mark", shouldn't it belong between Magic # and Make Your Move? Because it seems to be in alphabetical order. -71.63.42.172 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously...do not refer to me as your "buddy." We are not "buddies." You creep me the hell out. I have no desire to interact with you any more than is necessary. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 5:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology reply
I'm sorry, sir. I really did not mean to offend you by referring you to as my "buddy". I was just wanted to find out wheather or not "Make Your Mark" should belong between Magic # and Make Your Move? You wouldn't mind telling me, would you?-71.63.42.172 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How do you know that I am a "dude" and not a chick?-71.63.42.172 (talk) 13.43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And stay off my page Steve, you have no peaceful reason to be there under any circumstances, and you have been warned twice before. I have reported you to the moderators also. Hdayejr (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason you restored (diff) this edit I removed (diff)? Please don't restore it again. (I'm assuming for now that it was some kind of accident. If you feel the need, reply here, I'm watchlisting this page). R. Baley (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this user continues to harass you via IP on here, please feel to report to WP:AIV if obvious, or WP:ANI if that fails. This user is not entitled to edit on Wikipedia, as an indefinitely blocked user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split Decision
On the Split Decision article, could you please tell me what "overall gameplay" means on the retirement section. See more information of what I mean by that on the talk page if you haven't already.-71.63.42.172 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Confusing rules and overall gameplay" meant that the rules and gameplay in general were confusing. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
I'm sorry, sir. I thought that "overall gameplay" meant the win-loss record. I didn't mean to make it too complicated. I do apoligize if you were offended by that.-71.63.42.172 (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bonkers
On the Bonkers article (the pricing game of course), the blooper of the October 17, 2002 show where the game malfunctioned has been added again by a different user (a registered one I think). Is that really a blooper archive? Or should we just leave it in the article?-71.63.42.172 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TPiR prizes
Hi, Steve. Someone's added a great deal of description (bordering on personal opinion) about what types of prizes are and are not available to be offered on the show. The cited source for the entire section is the single sentence about American-made cars in the g-r.net FAQ. I figured you'd want to get out your Simplicity Canister Vacuum (MSRP $1399 in Swap Meet, OAD 2/13/08) and clean out some of the garbage. Best, John H JTRH (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy
I'm too lazy to bother or care, but I personally think the newly added (all by one person) "if you don't [achieve win condition] you win nothing" comments on half the articles that were just added or "the only way to win nothing is to [not win]" are completely self-evident and stupid and should be nixed; but I'm not going to go do it to that many articles just to have a revert war TheHYPO (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be also, if I had the track record that you do. Remember, you go back all the way to the Buckner fiasco of 2 years ago, you have long standing problems with many people on here.Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one other thing, the Price Is Right pages belong to Wikipedia, not you. If you want to own those type of pages, I'd suggest getting a web host and then you can have your own pages. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, let's click your contribution history and see where you have reverted many good faith edits.
Steve, you're no vandal. This situation needs to be resolved, however, and so as to prevent a 3RR violation from either one of you I've protected the One Bid page. Please comment on Talk:One Bid so we can peacefully discuss the issue and end this conflict. Thank you. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]04:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a chance, drop by my page. Another IP sock of User:Hdayejr has stirred up trouble again about your comments, and I'd appreciate your side of the story there since you're more familiar with him.
I have found a diff made by a blocked user concerning your privacy. Please enable emailing so that I may send said diff to you privately, intead of posting it on this userpage where everyone may see it.— DædαlusT@lk/Improve06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a friend of RR, you can trust me. My email is enabled, so just email me, and I can email you. I want to make you aware of the diff so you can decide if you want it deleted or not, I already showed it to Gonzo, but he said I should ask you if you want it deleted first, so here I am.— DædαlusT@lk/Improve05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to InuYasha. Thank you. In many of your recent edits, you have neglected to leave any edit summary to inform other editors what you did (and provide a rationale such as when removing content like you did from Naraku. Please try to be more attentive to the need to use edit summaries. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You left no explanation for removing it, hence my reverting. In the future, use the edit summaries so people know why you do it. As for it not displaying, may have been someone intending to use an Aux slot, but no reason to have it showing as is, so fine with the re-removal since it wasn't showing. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small request
Hey, Steve, quick question for you. I've been recently having problems with your old stalker Harvey...he's been evading his blocks and using various IPs to harass me. Since I'm sure he's done the same thing to you as well, I must ask you to help me in a Wiki intervention case I have going against him right now- just so the mods have some idea just what the scope of his trolling is (I know he's done more to you than he has me.) (Also, is there any way you could link me to the contrib you made concerning him having an arrest record? I need a chuckle.) Thanks, --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little late now, because the whole situation was rectified in the time between my posting and you responding...mostly what I was going to ask you to do was to just confirm just how desperate he is to evade his blocks by using IPs as socks to troll (which he did here, I believe, a couple of times as I stated above). The mods took care of it, and as far as I can tell they've begun protecting pages with edits he's reverted recently. I don't know why he's starting up again with this, but I know you've taken a lot of shit from him with the trolling and the reverting, so I figured you should know in case he tried it with you again. (Just letting you know too, he threatened to take legal action against the Wiki AGAIN...remember that?)--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say on golden-road.net's FAQ that the pricing game "Time is Money" has been officially retired (or at least that's the way i've read it. Should we change the status on the article?-24.125.169.130 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 questions, has anyone ever received the maximum amount of cash (ex. $50,000) on Plinko? Also, my other question is, I heard on a blogging website (I can't remember the name of the blog) that they are talking about retiring Plinko. Is it true? Or is it just pure bullcrap? Thanks! --Chrismaster1 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The closest anyone has ever come to winning Plinko was $21,000 in the early '90s, back when the center slot was still worth $5,000; today, that would be a score of $41,000.
Even though there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes right now, what with Roger being fired and the clueless Syd Vinnedge exerting more control over the show, I really don't think there's any chance they'd ever retire Plinko. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi i see you know alot about the price is right. i watch it everyday and still dont know as much as you. i was sad when bob baker retired but me is geeting used to drew cary. it is fun reading your controbtions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.240.143 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm trying to understand the reasoning for adjusting the layout of the templates on the date articles like December 16. We've tried to make the layout consistent throughout all of the articles so they are easier to read (while editing). I'm curious if there is some performance or policy reason for making the changes. Thanks. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page The Weather Channel. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. I think you can agree that comparing the logos of The Weather Channel and Burger King is not necessary after all.. --Ericdn (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been brought to my attention that your recent edits on The Weather Channel were actually to revert others' vandalism, instead of merely reverting your own unsuccessful edits, as I originally thought. I apologize for any confusion my original message may have caused, and I would like to thank you for working to keep articles free from vandalism. --Ericdn (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cookie
Ericdn has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Let's put aside the fussin' and the feudin' and watch a few local forecasts while we split this delicious chocolate chip cookie!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
"They, them, and their", as opposed to "he, him, and his"
You don't get it at all. Just "he, him, and his" make people confused. "They, them, and their" can mean male or female. Besides, it has been used in a vast majority of game show articles. WikiLubber (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you do realize you're bragging about Sottolacqua's expertise to the guy who wrote this, don't you? (No disrespect intended to Sottolacqua...but that's pretty damn patronizing.) -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Showcase (The Price Is Right). 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. You made five edits on this page in less than 24 hours.GSK (talk ● evidence)07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, joy of joys. How wonderful that you were able to fix something that wasn't broken by changing it to something that many people consider to be less accurate. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're supposedly trying to write a professional encyclopedia on this site, I'd have thought grammar would be regarded as pretty far from pointless. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Check Game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those deletions...
Hello, Steve. Listen, I know you might hate me for one reason or another (I don't know exactly what), but the consensus on those pricing-game articles is not looking too good. The one citing Check Game as being up for deletion actually links to a bundle deletion – of almost all of the 103 articles about the games.
MERGE -- 5 votes (plus one that voted to merge all games into the list except Plinko)
DELETE -- 6 votes
KEEP -- 2 votes
UNBUNDLE (and only nominate certain articles) -- 1 vote
Sooooo it looks like they're all going away. (For the record, I voted to keep.)
But Sottolacqua (who nominated these articles, and has shown in the past that he may or may not hate me) stated that "TPIRFanSteve's sources are self-published sources and are part of original, non-sourced, and non-verified research. Golden-Road.net, as a fansite, does not meet the criteria of a reliable third-party publication."
They apparently want "official", or at least reliable third-party, sources that discuss the games and their rules. But the show itself is unwilling to discuss the retired games, and Barker falsified records on-air during his last few seasons as host (actually, he falsified much more than that, but this is not the time to discuss such things).
The only problem is that the information you've posted in the FAQ can't be verified or sourced through other places, since all the other places that discuss the show are either outdated fan sites, YouTube, or the "PriceIsRight.com" forums – which are, essentially, a fan site.
(And really, "original research" seems to be kinda vague – The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows can be considered original research!)
So I just thought I'd let you know. It's really up to you if you want to vote – I've tried defending your credibility, with very little success, but will continue to do so. Daniel Benfield (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any official reason that Clearance Sale was retired? I can't seem to find any sources that indicate why it was retired. I have specified in the article that no official reason was given, but I wanted to see if you could confirm that. Thanks!-VarietyPerson (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have my guesses as to why Clearance Sale was retired, but either no official explanation has been given, or if one was, it was some generic-sounding comment that didn't really explain anything. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Check-Out. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check-Out. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Add 'em Up, 3 Strikes (pricing game). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TPIRFanSteve! I'm not sure if it was intentional, but you seem to have removed a large, well-referenced paragraph on this page concerning Peter Lawford, President Kennedy, and the role of the Rat Pack in the 1960 Presidential campaign. You may want to read up on both WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to begin with. When each sentence in a paragraph is ended with a footnote, it's a good indicator that it's a "thought-out" edit, backed up with footnotes to reliable sources. Hope this clears things up a little, and happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, TPIRFanSteve! I responded on my talk page, but in case you didn't see my response; I apologize for any misunderstanding. I "typed before I looked", and got confused in looking at the edit history. Once again, sorry about that, and cheers... :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are On the Spot (pricing game), Shower Game, Check Game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Magic Number (pricing game). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 1 Right Price. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Right Price. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bump (pricing game). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Eazy az 1 2 3. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eazy az 1 2 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hi Lo. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Lo. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Telephone Game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone Game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cover Up (pricing game). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cover Up (pricing game). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Most Expensive, Finish Line (pricing game), Professor Price. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Double Digits. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Digits. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Double Bullseye, Buy or Sell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Trader Bob. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trader Bob. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Make Your Mark. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Your Mark. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Double Prices. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Prices. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Price Is Right (US game show), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. There is no reliable secondary source right now that counts down each episode. I've looked all over and can't find a single one.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't realize I'd reverted all your edits. The only one I meant to revert was the episode count, which is the only point of concern I have in the article right now, and the only thing for which I can't find a source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I can't think of a way to source the episode count down to the number. The 7000th episode is easily verifiable, so probably the best thing to do would be to put "over 7000" with some sort of source verifying the #7000. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)19:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plinko (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Fred Silverman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pink Lady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, TPIRFanSteve. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Hello, TPIRFanSteve. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, TPIRFanSteve. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ready Aim Fire! 07:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Showcase (The Price Is Right). 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. You made five edits on this page in less than 24 hours. GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Price Is Right (US game show), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. There is no reliable secondary source right now that counts down each episode. I've looked all over and can't find a single one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
