User talk:However whatever

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Please stop edit warring at William Oefelein. You are now close to violating 3rr, which is blockable. Instead, please support your edit with a citation as has been suggested on the article's talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Lisa's version is a very serious POV violation. --However whatever 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Codswallop. Please support your assertion that Nowak was lying with a verifiable citation from a reliable source. You are already close to violating 3rr. If you continue to edit war over this unsupported WP:OR (which moreover strays into a vio of WP:BLP) I will take this to RfC. Please think with much heed before you carry on any longer with these reversions. Thank you. Gwen Gale 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said Lisa is lying? You are the one who is saying that. I'm just saying that the two are contradicting each other. --However whatever 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please support your assertion that they are contradicting each other with a verifiable citation from a reliable source. Gwen Gale 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you read????? One says they had a romantic relationship the other says they did not. --However whatever 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks. Meanwhile, WO told police he had ended the relationship before she was arrested. He said there was no longer a romantic relationship, she said there was "less than" a romantic relationship but either way, please support your assertion that they contradicted each other with a citation from a reliable source. Thank you. Gwen Gale 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you read the reliable references in the article????? If you cannot, please stop wasting everybody's time, and cosider leaving Wikipedia. She said no romantic relationship, he said yes romantic relationship. --However whatever 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken (or whatever). She said it was, at the time of her arrest, more than a working relationship, he said that at the time of her arrest there was no romantic relationship anymore, it had been over for months. Gwen Gale 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit being Bill Clinton with the definition of "is". --However whatever 22:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at William Oefelein. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or use dispute resolution if necessary, rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Have you read the talk page? Please stop edit warring. Thank you. Gwen Gale 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked and had not had a chance to respond. Just because you and User:Tachikoma came to an agreement does not mean that I have agreed. --However whatever 22:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint

Gwen Gale was unblocked for agreeing to voluntarily stay away from the article until the block would have normally expired. Had you made the same offer, you would have been unblocked as well (and this page was on watch in case you did). Blocks are intended to stop a disruptive situation, not to force someone to "suffer consequences". Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please be aware that calling another editor a "troll" is unacceptable, no matter how strongly you disagree. If someone really is trolling, it makes itself very clear without using the word, if not, it's disruptive and offensive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since she uses that word, I'm free to use it too. --However whatever 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Check User issued

Hello, in fairness and so you are aware, I created a request for check user in regards to you here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/However_whatever. thank you. - Denny 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that I am now aware. --However whatever 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party (phrase)

Currently there is a discussion about the material you have been adding to Democrat Party (phrase) at the Talk page. I encourage you to join in the discussion. --YbborTalkSurvey! 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to add other than to say "ditto" to everything you wrote. So far, you seem to be handling yourself quite well, and do not seem to need my assistance. --However whatever 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Hilton

Thanks for your notability checks on the Paris Hilton article. I see you removed my addition about the satirical song, stating "Mr. Smith" was not notable. I have serious doubts if this band is notable indeed, as they seem to have released little more than this song (although the clip looks quite professional). However, the song itself has achieved pretty much fame thusfar (with over 28,000 signatures, a store, the song being sold on iTunes, 61,000 results on Google] etc). Would you accept this song to be notable in the /In popular culture/-section, without making any explicit note of the artist in an article etc.? We could perhaps mention more publications to show its notability (e.g. [1]). Salaskan 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The internet allows pretty much any person to create any work of art (music, literature, video, etc.) and easily disseminate it. Just like in the article's popular culture section, where the statue's artist is named, and he has his own Wikipedia article, I think any songs made about Paris Hilton, pro or con (and especially con) have to pass the notability test in order to be included in her article. If Mr. Smith can pass the notability test and have his own article, I would not object to including his song in the Paris Hilton article.
Does that sound fair? --However whatever 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure does. I'll look some more info up and try to create an article, if I think it is notable enough. SalaSkan 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Amy Fisher My Story.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Amy Fisher My Story.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Assault on Reason.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Assault on Reason.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Fubar Book.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fubar Book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:If I knew then Amy Fisher.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:If I knew then Amy Fisher.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

The article Muffin top as is currently presented in this revision is entirely contained in Central_obesity#Muffin_Top and is therefore unnecessary. I am reverting the article back to a redirect page. --However whatever (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for reverting you. That warning was not correct. You did not vandalize. I have removed the warning from you page. J.delanoygabsadds 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

The merger of Muffin top and Love handles into Central obesity is currently under discussion on the relevant user pages. User:Cumulus Clouds tried to merge the articles before, and they were reverted to their separate articles.

The current discussions can be found here, here and here

The Muffin top article has already survived the WP:AFD process, with a consensus to keep the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin top).

Please respect consensus and do not merge them until a decision is reached. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop merging articles until consensus is reached!-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
An entry has been made at WP:WQA in an attempt to get some outside opinions to resolve this issue. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Love handles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)