User talk:TadjHolmes

With regard to your recent edits to Fallout: New Vegas, review scores should only be added if the source is considered to be a major source for reviews (VGChartz is not) and it is at one of the extremes for the game in question OR is one of the top "usual suspects" listed on the template page. Even then it is preferable to keep the list fairly short (the template page recommends no more than 15; it's at 13 at the moment). Please see Template:Video game reviews for more info. Thanks, Alphathon™ (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Fallout: New Vegas, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Fin ©™ 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a follow up to this - do you have any connection to VGChartz? Thanks! Fin ©™ 09:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being a fan of the site, no TadjHolmes (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain why your name used to be in the copyright notice for VGChartz[1] and why you have the same AIM screenname as Brett Walson's nickname[2][3]. Just curious :) Thanks in advance. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to the lack of response, I have posted a notice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#VG Chartz and Brett Walton. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really see what you are getting at or what you mean - where does it show an AIM screenname and a nickname being the same? I have already stated that I am a fan of the site, I wouldn't be going to the effort of editing pages otherwise just like it is obvious that you don't like the site so there would be a similar conflict of interest on your part, no? TadjHolmes (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shows it on Google's cache, which shows the version of the page before you modified it. Regardless, I edited the article only twice so I don't think it's really obvious whether I "like" or don't like the topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brett Walton for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Brett Walton, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Walton until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brett Walton, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere to discuss or resolve the issue? By who's opinion is it written as an advertisement? Reads like a biography to me. Is there a page where this is being discussed / managed / voted? TadjHolmes (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at Talk:Brett Walton. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defacement

Hello. I'm not defacing the article. Thanks! Fin ©™ 09:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. No, defacing an article would be the vandalising of the article, the removal of information so the remaining article didn't make sense, or the addition of gibberish, or something else which is easily visible as defacement by the reader. I readded sourced information you had improperly removed (by calling it spam), and removed other information that was not notable. None of that could be considered defacement. Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 must 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) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent post at WP:COIN attempted to out another editor, I have therefore removed it and will get the post permanently deleted. I will do the same for the previous post where another editor attempted to out you. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

I have a suspicion that you may be using multiple accounts to edit, in a way not permitted by policy. I have opened up an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TadjHolmes regarding this where you are welcome to comment. SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked 3 days for sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As Confirmed by CheckUser. –MuZemike 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TadjHolmes for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]