User talk:TheyCallMeNaughtyLola

June 2018

Hello, I'm 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Joan Rivers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Harry Rountree.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Harry Rountree.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 08:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Edward Bartley.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Edward Bartley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello TheyCallMeNaughtyLola, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Harry Rountree have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Marlene Dietrich, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Judy Garland, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Judy Garland while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting without comment

Hi there, I noticed you reverted a change I made on Bianca Del Rio but provided no reason for the reversion. If it was an error, that's fine, but I would appreciate a reason if it was intentional. CsikosLo (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheyCallMeNaughtyLola (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

DrKay has consistently reverted any edits to this particular aspect of the Garland article. If I were to revert the edits, I would give sources and/or an explanation as I have done on a multitude of occasions. DrKay has not provided any real explanations and has undone the following sourced edit to the article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:642:C401:4F3:B4B7:1965:10C9:6A7F There is also the fact that DrKay removed these edits: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.3.174.48 I have added significant information to the Garland page, all sourced, and have rendered explanations if not sourced. If I were to revert DrKay's removal of my changes, I would of added the four sources I have found since changing what I changed yesterday. Again, I have one account, I'm here to contribute and enrich where I can. DrKay has even done this when not relevant or true: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:TheyCallMeNaughtyLola#Minor_edits This accusation and block is unjust This is not an act of good faith I feel that my providing evidence of such warrants my saying that The only other account I've had is Bjuniper888 which I stopped with because of forgetting password

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TheyCallMeNaughtyLola - What other accounts have also reverted the addition of this exact content made by DrKay at the Judy Garland article? Can you provide diffs for me so I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah - DrKay has consistently reverted any edits to this particular aspect of the Garland article. If I were to revert the edits, I would give sources and/or an explanation as I have done on a multitude of occasions. DrKay has not provided any real explanations and has undone the following sourced edit to the article:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:642:C401:4F3:B4B7:1965:10C9:6A7F There is also the fact that DrKay removed these edits: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.3.174.48 I have added significant information to the Garland page, all sourced, and have rendered explanations if not sourced. If I were to revert DrKay's removal of my changes, I would of added the four sources I have found since changing what I changed yesterday. Again, I have one account, I'm here to contribute and enrich where I can. DrKay has even done this when not relevant or true: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:TheyCallMeNaughtyLola#Minor_edits This accusation and block is unjust This is not an act of good faith I feel that my providing evidence of such warrants my saying that The only other account I've had is Bjuniper888 which I stopped with because of forgetting passwordTheyCallMeNaughtyLola

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TheyCallMeNaughtyLola. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]