User talk:Deansherr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] License tagging for Image:Beau dowler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beau dowler.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Albert Einstein, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --ElKevbo 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Apple, you will be blocked from editing. SparrowsWing _(talk) 02:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the vandalism

Someone has gotten into my account and been vandalising, I have changed my password to stop this from occuring. Rest assured, I am against vandalism on wikipedia.

Sorry --Deansherr 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levi Strauss

If you would have bothered to ask I would have told you that I reverted 2 consecutive edits which were vandalism by the same user. When I reverted them, I reverted them both simultaneously (using TW). It did not revert the ones prior to that because they were from a different user. I do quick-vandalism rollbacks and reverts. I (as well as most people who use Twinkle) do not check each prior version of pages before reverting. So, next time you want to leave a comment on my talk page, I'd appreciate it if you didn't throw out demands (without knowing the situation) and sign your posts. - Rjd0060 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Dean Sherr

A tag has been placed on Dean Sherr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WebHamster 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Being published and being a journalist are two different things. People can get stories published but simply getting them published does not mean that the writer is inherently notable, especially as in this current scenario the story was simply a one-off op-ed piece about AFL. Considering your user name it is pretty clear you are also the individual in question so there is a pretty clear conflict of interest too. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)