User talk:Anthony22

2006

License tagging for Image:Lou Gehrig best 800.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Lou Gehrig best 800.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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:Image legality questions. 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Sybil Ludington Hey, how ya doin? I noticed you added some pics to the Sybil Ludington page, I have a hunch you live in that area. I myself grew up about a quarter-mile from her grave (which is partly why I did some work on the article). How bout you? Sorry for the delay in responding to your message, but you didn't leave a link and I had to reply to my own talk page. I don't live in the area, but I visit Putnam County once in a while. I like to take pictures in the area. If you visit the articles for Carmel and Patterson, you will see more of my pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony22 (talk • contribs) Grave images Hi, thanks for donating the images. I don't think it's really appropriate to add images of family graves to living people, I moved the De Niro one to his father's article Robert De Niro, Sr.. Arniep 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Travels You going by the Putname County cemeteries any time soon? --evrik 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC) We got a photo of the grave we needed. Thanks for your offer! --evrik 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) JFK Hi, I actually confirmed your info right here on WP, which I should have done before reverting your edit. My only defense is that I saw an unsourced assertion in an article that is a frequent target for vandalism. Subtle vandalisms which add false info to an article are particularly dangerous because they can damage WP's credibility. I already replaced your material; sorry if I caused you any concern : ) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2007

Conde Nast headstone Sorry, I disagree; find a photograph of the man, not his headstone. Frankly, it could be any Nast; there's no name on it confirming him. In any case, it's trivial. This isn't a dead site for fans, though I love gravestones and graveyards as much as the next guy. I really don't think a gravestone pic belongs in an encyclopaedia article, even if you have posted many before. Frankly, such an image isn't important unless (a) the gravesite is extraordinary and of wide interest (ie architecturally, like the tomb of Warren G. Harding) or (b) it is being used to illustrate the posthumous devotion of fans, ie Oscar Wilde or the lead singer of the Doors.Mowens35 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Babe Ruth headstone I removed the photo of the Babe Ruth headstone from that article for reasons similar to those cited by Mowens35 (above). Frankly, the photo does not add any value to the article: it is not architecturally or stylistically unique and doesn't say anything about Babe Ruth himself. To quote Mowens35: "I really don't think a gravestone pic belongs in an encyclopaedia article, even if you have posted many before." Sorry to be so blunt, Oscar 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Gravestone Fetish? Hey Anthony22. I have to agree with Mowens35 and Oscar, all the grave pictures are a bit much. I was looking at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery page because most of my dead family members are buried there and you had added gravestone pictures too all of the famous people listed there. I then checked out what your other contributions were and it seems that you've done this to a lot of people. The point of an article is to talk about what made the person famous and why they are important. A headstone doesn't have to do with their life unless in the words of Mowens35, " A) the gravesite is extraordinary and of wide interest (i.e. architecturally, like the tomb of Warren G. Harding) or B) it is being used to illustrate the posthumous devotion of fans (i.e. Oscar Wilde or the Jim Morrison)" There's no need for pictures of gravestones on people who don't have famous gravesites. It's kinda creepy to have pictures of gravestones on people's pages when there aren't any pictures of them when they were living. I think from now on in the future, you probably shouldn't put up all of those pictures. I can see you live in Westchester and you like to take pictures of other things in Westchester. So why don't you continue to do that instead of taking anymore gravestone pictures. I won't remove the pictures that are already up. But if an Admin came along and saw the pictures, they might remove them because 1) they don't enhance the article or add to the understanding of the person 2) you don't need them for most people 3) It's kinda weird. I hope you understand. Hdog13 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Iona Preperatory School No, I did clean it up. The wording was not neutral at all, and, more importantly, it was copied straight from the school's website. Unless the school relicenses the text on their website under the GFDL, it should be removed anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shanel (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC). The text from the school's website will have to go; it's a copyright violation. But, if you wrote the text about the football team yourself, that can stay. I thought that perhaps it was copied from an offline source or was on the school website at some point in time (as some copyvios are); my apologies.--§hanel 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Michael Jordan photo Please see WP:Fair use. Judging by your edit history you need to familiarize yourself with it. No worries though, I made a lot of mistakes when I first started up as does everybody. Quadzilla99 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) To clarify, that image is (most likely) copyrighted by the publisher of the book, so the source and copyright need to be identified as such. This would mean it could only be used under a claim of fair use, but as Quadzilla mentioned, there are many restrictions to the use of fair use images. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Image copyright problem with Image:Michael_Jordan_202.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Michael_Jordan_202.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 in the next seven days. 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: Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Fordham I've been on the staff and written histories of aspects of Fordham. The address of Fordham for purposes of the postal service, taxes, real estate records, etc., is Fordham Road. The Ram plaque is on the "main drive" in from the Fordham Road gate. The records for all Fordham-related issues are under "fordham Road." The provincial's office was Fordham Road, and the main drive from Fordham Road leads to the front door oif the administration buildings. The entrance picture was originally for Fordham Hospital, now gone (which is where the parking lots now are). The fact that drivers to the school use that lot does not make it the official main entrance.HarvardOxon 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Peter Revson Hi Anthony. Thanks for taking the trouble to add the picture of Peter Revson. Unfortunately the copyright for that picture still belongs to the photographer who took it, or possibly the magazine who may have bought the rights from him/her. Scanning the picture in does not constitute creating a new image, but copying an existing one. The GFDL license is therefore not appropriate as the rights to the picture are not yours to release. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines. 4u1e 07:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Image tagging Please correct the license template you have used for all the images that you have scanned. The copyright belongs to the photographer/publisher, not you, so you don't have the rights to release it under GFDL. You have been warned before about this. Please cease uploading new images until your previous uploads have been corrected. If they aren't fixed, the images are subject to deletion. If you have any questions, leave a message for me on my talk page. Thanks and have a good day. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Image tagging for Image:Whitman_300.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Whitman_300.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. 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. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Image:Betty_&_Dan_200.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Betty_&_Dan_200.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Image:Bryant_200.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bryant_200.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 12:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Duplicate images uploaded Thanks for uploading Image:01 Patterson grave.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:001 Patterson.JPG. The copy called Image:001 Patterson.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action. This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 01:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Possibly unfree Image:Dorothy_300.jpg An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dorothy_300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Image:01 Patterson grave.JPG Hi! I was preparing to move Image:01 Patterson grave.JPG to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used on other Wikimedia projects, but there is conflicting license information on the image page. You state that you release it under GFDL, but farther down you also state that you place it in the public domain. You can't do both as the concepts are mutually exclusive. Please remove one or the other of the license tags, and if you feel up to it, you can also move the image to the Commons so other projects can use it. If you don't move it, someone else will get around to it. --Darkwind (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Observation: on Flegenheimer headstone image 'talk page' This image shows small pebels/rocks on the headstone, three on the left (as well as some fallen into the grass) and one on the right. This is a Jewish custom when visiting a gravesite; it suggests more than one person linked to them personally had been to the grave within a year of the photograph's date. Shir-El too 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Floyd Patterson Pic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Floyd_Patterson#Photograph_of_grave_of_Floyd_Patterson Hello, the pic is still there, it is your original, on floyd's talk page you said many things are done wrong on wikipedia? LOL, welcome to the club. I have an account with over 2000 edits(in few months), there is even some talk on my talk page requesting my assistance and to apply for administratorship, i say never, not for any money, dont waste your life here, build your own site. I did not touch that account since April. Way too many people have been suspended here for being somebody they are not, or tried to help. Check wikipedia-watch.org site, will tell you more. But that does not mean you should not correct mistakes. And there are tons of them here. Hopefully some day there will be new wikipedia leadership, i'd do so much to change things here, it's a jungle! As far as Floyd goes, he should be remembered as a great champion, we do not have many gentlemen left in boxing these days. For your info... Floyd Patterson who became champion in 1956 at 21 & 10 months, (Patterson was originally trying for a light heavyweight title but after marciano's retirement was moved to heavyweight division with high #5 rating on may 2 1956), boxers like willie pep, bobbo olson and patterson stood for some culture/ a boxer should be a gentleman in and out of ring. IN their lifes they have proven it. But it goes to show you that Floyd waited for Rocky's retirement, he simply did not want to be moved to the heavyweight division. Laters amigo. Image copyright problem with Image:CC Mall Walk.JPG Image Copyright problem Thank you for uploading Image:CC Mall Walk.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

License tagging for Image:New Roc City NR.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:New Roc City NR.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Duplicate images uploaded Thanks for uploading Image:W.C. Handy Place 800.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:W.C. Handy Place.jpg. The copy called Image:W.C. Handy Place.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action. This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Fischer It is in the references under the "Death" subsection. Therefore, it should not be in the External links. Chessy999 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Documentary Usage of Image Anthony22 - I would like to talk to you about possibly using one of your images in a documentary. How might I reach you? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitch & Plow (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Image:Crane_200ab.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Crane_200ab.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Patsy Ramsey The informatrion you cited was removed in error, not intentionally. The next time you have a question about one of my edits, I suggest you approach me in a civil manner and do so on my discussion page, not my user page. Please refer to the Wikipedia pages about civility, wikiquette, and assuming good faith before leaving anyone another rude message. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) Hi, Anthony, thanks for getting in touch. Your encounter with the camera Nazis sounds like what happened to me when I visited the British Library in London with my digital cam in hand; all I wanted was a picture of the only surviving manuscript of Beowulf, is that so much to ask? They kindly held my camera until I was ready to leave, sheesh. Anyway, I'm readying Marshall's article for WP:GAN and hopefully WP:FAC, which is kind of a big deal, so that's why I'm particularly anal about things at the moment. The reason why the information about Marshall's burial is mentioned in past tense is so it can match with the rest of the section; to suddenly switch it to "Bob Marshall is buried" is grammatically awkward and incorrect. Although it is interesting and noteworthy that he is buried with the rest of his family, including one sister who eerily died at the same young age as he did, I think it's more important to stick to the established tense and note that he was buried next to his parents; what happened after, in present tense, doesn't exactly fit. I hope you don't mind me reverting back, and I do appreciate the input, but I want only the best for this article and for Marshall's legacy, nitpicky grammar and all. :) Take care and better luck visiting other historic cemeteries, María (habla conmigo) 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Ferncliff Cemetery and Aaliyah I see no problem with Aaliyah being listed, as are the other names of famous persons, but if you started listing all "private rooms" the article would be flooded. Someone that is interested in finding the location can get a list at the office. It is not pertinent where you placed it. Doc ♬ talk 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Amanda Blake Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Amanda Blake. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Image:Unruh_201.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Unruh_201.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of Image:Jean harris 100.jpg A tag has been placed on Image:Jean harris 100.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Jean harris 100.jpg|the 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. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC) my apologies I did not intend to delete the cheerleader picture. My apologies!--JConoco (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Do you have any other photos relating to the high school? either the building, campus or students?--JConoco (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) NRHS pictures Thanks for the reply. I was thinking the article wld benefit from the addition of certain photos (ie: the 'new wing', the clocktower(close-up, the 'Whitney Young Auditorium' of athletic type images). --JConoco (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site pic: Thanks! Thanks so much for photographing and uploading your pic for Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site. I don't know why exactly, but no one else has been able to get there, and it has been a notable gap in photo coverage of historic sites in NYS. If you have another pic or two from other angles, or inside, I would love to see those added, too. If you're not aware, there's a List of NHLs in NY which is very nearly complete in terms of photos, and there's List of Registered Historic Places in Westchester County, New York, which could use more additions. Thanks again, keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) W.C. Handy Gravesite Thanks for adding that pic; can you give coordinates for the grave, please (likewise for any other graves you may have photographed)? Grave coordinates can be added to several infoboxes using resting_place_coordinates or similar; for info on finding coordinates, see: Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. Note that such coordinates should be specific to the grave-site not general coordinates for the cemetery. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I'd be grateful for a reply to my question, please.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Nudge. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Graves Wow! I have to say I'm jealous of the number of graves you've been able to upload. I wanted to make a note, however. Have you heard of Wikimedia Commons? If you upload images there instead of here on Wikipedia, members of any Wikimedia project can use them, not just those of us on the English language version. Check out my gallery of graves, by the way: [[1]]. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Image:01 Claire Ruth grave.JPG The copyright information is inadequate. I thought you'd like to fix this. Images w/o proper copyright information can be deleted on sight. -- Cat chi? 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC) License tagging for Image:Harry_Houdini_Grave_Marker_1024.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Harry_Houdini_Grave_Marker_1024.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Now Commons File:M R 800.jpg, an image uploaded from this account in April 2006, is now available as File:Max Reinhardt 800.jpg (Commons:File:Max Reinhardt 800.jpg). — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

2009

File:01 Vin Learson grave.JPG Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:01 Vin Learson grave.JPG The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC) File:01 Yonkers Raceway.JPG Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you upload to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:01 Yonkers Raceway.JPG. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) File:01 Paine cottage.JPG Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:01 Paine cottage.JPG. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Albert Hodge 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Albert Hodge 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Billie Burke best 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Billie Burke best 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Bonwit 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:1 Bonwit 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Cagney best 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Cagney best 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 David Sarnoff 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 David Sarnoff 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Dorsey best 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Dorsey best 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Dutch Schultz 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:1 Dutch Schultz 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Gate of Heaven best 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Gate of Heaven best 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Harry Frazee 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Harry Frazee 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Peter Arno 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:1 Peter Arno 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Now Commons File:1 Julie Haydon.JPG, an image uploaded to Wikipedia from this account in April 2007, is now File:1 Julie Haydon.jpg (Commons:File:1 Julie Haydon.jpg). — Athaenara ✉ 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Queen of Peace 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Queen of Peace 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1 Sal Mineo cr.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Sal Mineo cr.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) A photo you took in 2006 Anthony, I have to delete the photo you took of the lake at the Kensico Cemetery, because "lake.jpg" is too generic a filename, and other people have uploaded completely different lake photos. Don't worry, though - I'm going to re-upload it as "Lake at Kensico Cemetery.jpg" (unless you'd prefer it be called something else instead). Let me know within the next 24 hours. DS (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC) File:1Iona Prep 800.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1Iona Prep 800.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC) File:16 West fairway.jpg Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:16 West fairway.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC) NowCommons: File:2 horses 800.jpg File:2 horses 800.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Two Horses at Tilly Foster Farm, Southeast, New York.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Two Horses at Tilly Foster Farm, Southeast, New York.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC) File:Eddie Foy Park.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Eddie Foy Park.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC) File:Eddie Foy Plaque cr.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Eddie Foy Plaque cr.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC) File:Eastchester Town Hall 800.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Eastchester Town Hall 800.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC) FYI:cheerleader image Hi, Anthony22. I have some misgivings about the publication of your latest cheerleader photo, and I've asked for advice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Advice please: Personally identifiable image of teenage girl. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC) No point in deleting the image -- unless and until someone more knowledgable than either of us says it needs to go. I posted on the noticeboard in hopes of getting some advice on the regarding policy on that kind of image, because I know that Wikimedia has sensitivities about stuff like that. I think it's probably OK, since the guideline at Commons seems to allow for photos taken in a public place, as long as the photos aren't uncomplimentary of the subject. --Orlady (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Find a Grave Hi. I'd noticed you have added some to Find A Grave to some articles. That's perfectly fine, but I would like to encourage you to use the template for the site. This gives us consistent display of the site and also allows us to track which articles have links. If you would when you add the link, use this: {{findagrave|GrID}}. For Ed Gein, for instance, it would look like this: {{findagrave|089170}}. The grave ID number is just after the "GRid=" in the link. You don't have to put anything else, it's all done by the template. Thanks so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Re: Tagging of Article on Iona Prep Hello. I appreciate that you've added all the information to the article, but there are problems with it. An encyclopedia actually *can* cover too much information on one thing. What has happened on Iona's page is that there's paragraphs upon paragraphs on the football history. But it's not an article about Iona Prep Football. It's an article about the school. The amount of information on the football program dwarfs the rest of the article. There's a horribly uneven slant towards their football teams. There's barely a passive mention of any of the other sports. The football sections are too long and contain way too much information. For example, the scores of every game in the seasons covered and in depth analyses is absolutely not necessary, and one could argue that it violates WP:ENC. The sections are written like essays to promote the school's program. The football section should be reduced to a few shorter paragraphs that mention the school's football history. The paragraphs also use sentences like "Tyrae Woodson-Samuels and Jeff Mack spearheaded one of the most prolific offenses in the history of the CHSFL as Iona Prep steamrollered undefeated through 12 consecutive games.", which uses words that only make the history sound nicer and makes the article look pretty (bolded), and even uses a peacock term (which is italicized). I believe that the football sections need to be completely rewritten so that they're entirely neutral and are completely encyclopedic. I understand that you don't feel qualified to add history on the other sections, that's why I added the tags, so that other editors could add such information. You're not the only editor that frequents the page, I'm sure.  AcroX  17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC) re: Photograph of Bob Marshall burial site I'm sorry that you disapprove of my previous edit in which I removed File:Bob Marshall Burial Site 1000.jpg from Bob Marshall (wilderness activist), but may I remind you to assume good faith? My edit was not vandalism, nor was it in any way intended as malicious. I admit that I did not consider the technical difficulties that you may have had in obtaining such an image; rather, I was concerned with its lack of aesthetic appeal in an article that is already sufficiently illustrated. I fail to see why two images are required to illustrate Marshall's final resting place, when most biographies rarely have one. While removing this image, I kept the one of his tombstone (obviously the most important of the two), and added a free image of Marshall himself elsewhere in the article. With both images in the "Later efforts and sudden death" section, it looks crowded. The main reason for its removal, however, is that the image is incredibly dark, practically covered in shadow, and its subject only becomes clear when one clicks on it. Even then it's very difficult to read what's on the tombstones. In short, I question its ability to enhance the article or add to the understanding of the subject matter, which is what images should do. As you can see, my edit was not "indiscriminate"; quite the opposite. It would have been impossible for me to explain my reasons for removing the image in an edit summary, which is why I used the benign term "cleaning up pictures" instead. I still don't believe it warrants inclusion in the article, which has obtained Featured Article status and must therefore maintain a high quality. Whether it remains or not, the image is included at the Commons, where any Wikipedia project may find and use it. Your work remains. I hope you reconsider the addition of this particular image, but either way thank you for contacting me with your concerns. María (habla conmigo) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your reply, Anthony. I'm aware of a photographer's inability to change the circumstances of the scene they're photographing, and I didn't mean my above comments to insult your abilities as a photographer, so please don't take this personally. I'm commenting on the image, not you. As it is, the image is difficult to make out and therefore does not add to the article. As for the newest addition, I found it on the Forest Service's website, but I'm fairly sure it was included in Glover's biography. There are tons of photos I've found via searches that I would love to include in articles, as well, but copyright is always an issue, I agree. María (habla conmigo) 13:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Fair use rationale for File:Bust of Jacob K. Javits at Javits Convention Center.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bust of Jacob K. Javits at Javits Convention Center.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2010

March 2010 Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Marilyn Monroe, as "minor" only if they truly 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. Gyrofrog (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You are now a Reviewer 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. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) can you helpout? You seem to know alot about the Westchester area. And more specifically New Rochelle. There have been many many articles about new rochelle that have been deleted by a editor on this site and these deletions do not appear to be productive or fair. I would say that as many as 30 articles about new ro have been deleted and i think as many as 30 more about westchester have as well (by the same editor). Would you have any ability to help replace these articles as they are historic and/or factual and relevant to the city at its current time? It would be nice to fix this so that the data can be available for the community at large. Here are just some of the articles: • SHELDRAKE LAKE • HUGUENOT YACHT CLUB • DICKERMANS POND • GOOSE ISLAND • PINE ISLAND • TRAVERS ISLAND • DAVENPORT'S NECK • FIVE ISLANDS PARK • BEECHMONT • BAYBERRY • BONNIECREST • RESIDENCE PARK • HUDSON PARK • PEA ISLAND • ECHO BAY • ECHO ISLAND • HARRISON ISLAND • TANK ISLAND • BETH EL TEMPLE • WARD ACRES • NATHAN BARRETT • DAVENPORT NECK • NEW ROCHELLE TENNIS CLUB • NEW ROCHELLE ROWING CLUB • NEW ROCHELLE PUBLIC LIBRARY • PREMIUM POINT, NEW ROCHELLE • NEW ROCHELLE BLACKBERRY (LAWTON BLACKBERRY) • ISAAC E YOUNG MIDDLE SCHOOL • AVALON ON THE SOUND • AVALON ON THE SOUND EAST • THE KAUFMAN BUILDING • COOPERS CORNERS • MIDDLETOWN • LATHERS WOODS • WINYAH • PREMIUM POINT • TITUS MILL POND • CARPENTERS POND Westchester articles that are gone include: • LAWRENCE PARK (BRONXVILLE) • WAYSIDE COTTAGE (SCARSDALE) • BRONXVILLE POST OFFICE • MOUNT VERNON POST OFFICE • HARRISON POST OFFICE • MASTERSON DUSENBERRY HOUSE (BRONXVILLE) • BRONXVILLE WOMENS CLUB • BRONX RIVER PARKWAY RESERVATION • Bedford Road Historic District • Bedford Village Historic District • MARBLE SCHOOLHOUSE (EASTCHESTER) • JOHN STEVENS HOUSE (MOUNT VERNON) • BOLTON PRIORY (PELHAM MANOR) • EDGEWOOD HOUSE (PELHAM MANOR) • PELHAMDALE (PELHAM MANOR) • BAR BUILDING (WHITE PLAINS) Here are some articles that have been substantially detracted from with unnecessary removal of content: • PELHAM ISLANDS • GLEN ISLAND • BAR BUILDING (WHITE PLAINS) • NEPTUNE ISLAND • WILDCLIFF • LELAND CASTLE • NEW ROCHELLE POST OFFICE • PIONEER BUILDING (NEW ROCHELLE) • THOMAS PAINE COTTAGE • DAVENPORT HOUSE • TRINITY ST.PAULS EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH (NEW RO) • FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND LEWIS PINTARD HOUSE (NEW RO) • NEW ROC CITY Maybe you can help see whatsup with all this deletion and Bing.com offers a glimpse into the missing articles just by searching new rochelle and also newrochellenews.info has alot of reference material. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Je le monde (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC) New Rochelle High School cheerleader Hi Anthony22, Can you please remove the picture of the cheerleader from the NRHS page? It is me and I really don't want it there. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.188.22 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Grave of Francis Saltus Saltus With what delight I discovered the photo of the grave of Francis Saltus Saltus, which I had not seen! I should very much like to visit it some day. He is a great hero of mine. Algabal (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Haemorrhage Is the correct spelling. "Hemorrhage" is an American variant. Deb (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Find a Grave link on Lindbergh article (it was a duplicate) The "Find a Grave" link you added was apparently deleted by another editor because it was a duplicate of a link already in the External Links list (second from top). I had reverted the removal until I noticed that it was a duplicate and took it out again because it actually was unneeded because it had been in the list since June, 2009. Centpacrr (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Revson 200.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Revson 200.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as File:Halloween Midgets 2011.JPG to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [2]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Multichill (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lorenzo Charles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Raleigh and Oakwood Cemetery

Jay Paterno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bill O'Brien

Joe Paterno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bill O'Brien

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Find A Grave links and "minor" edits

Hello. Please stop adding links to the site Find A Grave. This site has repeatedly been determined to fail both WP:RS and WP:EL criteria and should not be added. You seem to be doing it a lot, so I thought I should let you know.

We have had problems with people from the site Find A Grave coming here and purposefully adding their site everywhere. Many editors see it as a form of mass spamming.

Furthermore, please stop putting the m for minor tag on your edits when you are adding content. That's not what the tag is for. Using it that way is highly misleading. Some people automatically hide all minor edits from their watchlist, and by marking your non-minor edits as minor you are making it difficult for people to see what you are doing. I hope that was only a mistake. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Don May, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NIT (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons

Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Charles E. Wilson Mausoleum February 2012.JPG

Any chance you can add the date of this memorial? Can we assume 1972? As a 3D artwork, photography of it for WP is not allowed under the current US copyright laws, but they only apply post 1990. If it's pre 1990, also need to add the correct template when it gets moved to commons - see Freedom_of_panorama#United_States  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know the date of construction of any mausoleums. I would imagine that the cemetery office would have knowledge and access to this information. I have uploaded many images of mausoleums to Wikipedia, and this is the first time that I've ever had a request for a date of construction. I am fairly certain that the Wilson mausoleum predates 1990. Anthony22 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it must be close to his death. I thought you might know a date. No problem, we'll just say 1972. And you may well get asked for more in future as all free images are being moved off of en-Wiki, hopefully by the end of 2013 - and commons will need to know the date of modern 3D artwork constructions.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Goldstar Mothers Statue 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Goldstar Mothers Statue 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Celtic Cross Kensico Cemetery February 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Celtic Cross Kensico Cemetery February 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Frieze on Outer Wall of Our Lady Queen of Peace Mausoleum 2006.jpg

I have deleted the File as there is a duplicate on commons - File:Frieze on Outer Wall of Queen of Peace Mausoleum 2006.JPG - we don't keep duplicates of commons files. It would have been deleted soon anyway, as all free files now end up in commons - either you can put them there or someone will soon move it there.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sculpture of George Washington in Kensico Cemetery February 2012.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sculpture of George Washington in Kensico Cemetery February 2012.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Treestone With Anchor, Kensico Cemetery February 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Treestone With Anchor, Kensico Cemetery February 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Patricia Mary Quinton Child Monument February 2012.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Patricia Mary Quinton Child Monument February 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Erotic Lovers April 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Erotic Lovers April 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Benjamin T. Babbitt Headstone 2009.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Benjamin T. Babbitt Headstone 2009.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dutchess County Fair at Rhinebeck, NY, August 2012.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Dutchess County Fair at Rhinebeck, NY, August 2012.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hyde Park Statues of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt August 21, 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hyde Park Statues of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt August 21, 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Powers ^T 01:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gold Star Mothers Memorial Getty Square 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gold Star Mothers Memorial Getty Square 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

|}

2013, partial

Disambiguation link notification for January 13 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruby Goldstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (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. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC) YouTube links Please be aware that we cannot link to videos on YouTube which are copyright violations. It is up to you to show that the video was uploaded by or with permission of the copyright holder. Yworo (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I come bearing definitions Porter: "a person employed to carry luggage and other loads"[3]. However, "bearers" is fine, especially if it's used in the film. I just didn't like them being called "girls". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yvette Vickers

I know it's in the source but what is your personal reasoning behind including the street name of where Vickers lived? I'm of two minds about being so specific. Dismas|^(talk) 13:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in being specific. The location of Marilyn Monroe's death and Lou Gehrig's death is shown in their respective Wikipedia articles. I became interested in Yvette Vickers after I just watched Attack of the 50 Foot Woman on Turner Classic Movies. She was a good actress and a hot Playboy Playmate. It's really sad how she died.

Anthony22 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Judging by the comments at the top of the page, I thought that some drastic editing was needed. However you obviously hold this page of high value so I won't get in your way. I agree though with the criticism that the football information is too long and it does read like an advertisement for the school. I am a graduate of the the Prep and admire the school and alums a great deal. Your feedback is appreciated and I will put back the info on Renzie Lamb and a few other notable alums. Buttsco (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

DPL 2013-04-08

Disambiguation link notification for April 8 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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. John Wooden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Game of the Century Yvette Vickers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to William Hudson It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Audrey Meadows

Audrey was born in NYC, unlike her elder sister, Jayne, as per this footnote, gleaned from Ancestry.com:

Audrey Cotter was born in New York City in 1922, not in China as has been commonly stated. A 1921 passenger list shows the family entering the United States from China via Vancouver (S.S. Empress of Russia arriving at Vancouver from Shanghai, July 10, 1921). A 1927 passenger list shows Audrey's birthplace as New York (S.S. Olympic, arriving at New York from Southamption, May 3, 1927). The 1930 U.S. census, listing the family in Providence, Rhode Island, also shows Audrey's birthplace as New York City and her age as 8 years old in April 1930, which also confirms 1922 as her year of birth.

Yours, Quis separabit? 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Anthony: Of course, discrepancies arrive and sometimes are not easy to settle which leads to footnotes or endnotes detailing conflicting information. I certainly do not go by Find-a-Grave as a rule, however U.S. government records: census, travel manifests/itineraries, Social Security Death Index records, etc. are generally reliable, and incomparably superior to IMDb, Find-a-Grave, or hearsay. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

DPL 2013-05-27

Disambiguation link notification for May 27 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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. Richard Alexander (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Babes in Toyland Richard Tucker (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Forest Lawn Memorial Park It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you for your additions to Jesse Owens. Please note that you need to add reliable sources to the information to include. So far none of the new detail has any citation. Thanks Span (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Notables MUST have sources

Whether its this edit for Cassville, Missouri or this one for List of people from Newark, New Jersey, WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that notables added to a list within an article must include a reliable and verifiable source establishing a connection between the person and the place. If you knew that the person was connected to the place based on the source, simply add the same source to the article. If there was no source in the original article for the person, adding the individual to the article risks propogating incorrect information. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit to the article for Wall Township, New Jersey added Gil McDougald as a notable, with no source provided. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, all entired in such lists must have articles and must have reliable and verifiable sources establishing their connection to the place. If you knew that the person was connected to the place based on a source, simply add the same source to the article. If there was no source for the person that you used as the basis for the addition, adding the individual to the article risks propogating incorrect information. Please ensure that all future edits adding notables to lists in articles include the required sources and feel free to contact me here or on my talk page with any questions about how to add the required sources. Any future unsourced additions may be removed and may be treated as vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Creepy Halloween Goblin 2013.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Creepy Halloween Goblin 2013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DPL 2013-11-19

Disambiguation link notification for November 19 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irwin Dambrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Howard Taft High School (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. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Owens

Thanks for your message. I'm sure the content will add good things to the article. It just needs an inline citation, as is the policy at WP. Thanks Span (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Iona Prep article

Please see my reply to your comments (on my edits) on my Talk Page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

howdy

Wow, look at all this great work.  :-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia. I collapsed some of your older messages, I hope you don't mind. You can always click the 'show' button to see them, and you can still edit them if necessary. However, if you don't like the new talkpage-decorator, feel free to click the view-history button, and undo my changing-of-the-drapes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

good work on Lewie aka Kareem

Hello Anthony, you can call me 74. Noticed your work adding the info about the Tower of Power, thanks. I went ahead and added your sentence back in, with the URL you cited. Here[4] is what I did:

EDITING

This earned him a nickname — "''The tower from Power''."<ref name="PhillyDotCom">http://articles.philly.com/1989-05-25/sports/26109975_1_power-memorial-high-school-kareem-abdul-jabbar-power-basketball</ref>

And here is what it looks like:

READING

This earned him a nickname — "The tower from Power."

No need to be all fancy, though. Any time you want to use a URL to cite something, you can do it like this:

EDITING#2 The sky is blue.[http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Why_is_the_Sky_Blue.html]

Which looks like this:

READING#2 The sky is blue.[5]

That is pretty much how I usually do it. Hope this helps, and thanks much for improving wikipedia. Feel free to drop me a note on my talkpage if you ever need anything, or if you want fast answers to quick questions, I highly recommend the friendly folks at WP:TEAHOUSE. p.s. Very jealous you got to be there in the 1960s to see it all.  :-)   Talk to you later. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harlem River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spuyten Duyvil (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Creepy Halloween Goblin 2013.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Creepy Halloween Goblin 2013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Battlement Terrace 02.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Beach at Lake Minnewaska 2011.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Best Swimming Spot in Lake Awosting.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Blanche Yurka Footstone February 2012C.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Charles E. Wilson Mausoleum February 2012.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lou Gehrig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Heights (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony22. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Bill de Blasio

Thanks for your contribution. The information you added was unsourced and could be considered unpublished personal information, in violation of our WP:BLP policies. Accordingly, I have reverted your edit. Please let me know if you think I made a mistake. Pburka (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Was Rocco Scuiletti fired by his trucking company after the Kerry Kennedy incident?

Citations belong in the article. For details see WP:CITE. Putting the sources on my talk page is OK but inadequate to include the information unsourced in the article. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Is Jim Leavelle to the left or right of Oswald in the iconic photograph?

The caption doesn't say "Oswald's right". And standard procedure is to identify the subject from the viewer's perspective (e.g., "the orange is to the right of the apple"). 107.15.200.87 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bridge on the River Kwai

You've recently added over 200 words to a plot summary that was already too large. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Please consider trimming as much as you have added so that other editors don't have to do it. Thanks. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Tiger Woods, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ted Kennedy. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Do Robert and Charlene Spierer live in the Edgemont neighborhood of Scarsdale, New York?

You may think your personal experiences are better than reliable sources on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia policy requires reliable sources. You have been told this repeatedly, and you have edited Wikipedia long enough to know these kinds of policies. Other editors and I have given you links to these policies. I suggest reading them. This is not a blog. This is not your personal website. This is an encyclopedia. You basically have three choices: start sourcing your additions to Wikipedia, continue adding unsourced information and get blocked for doing so, or stop editing. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

White racist police who beat up blacks. But so many white kids in yonkers think they are hip hoppers. A jim crow like segregation still occurs. The poor communities are full of drug addicts, and their is little housing in Yonkers. Yonkers is not a place people should be proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.9.43 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Merrill upload 800.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Merrill upload 800.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please provide a source for anything you add to an article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm sure you mean well, but please remember to provide citations to reliable sources when adding or changing content. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Independent contractor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony22. You have new messages at Magnolia677's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Hey Anthony, regarding this edit: they're helpful changes, but I see that the file itself refers to the player as Abdul-Jabbar, not Alcindor. I only bring this up because captioning the photo as Alcindor is confusing to me when the file itself states otherwise. I realize that this was the same year that he changed his name, but just wanted to point it out. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh Hefner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 9333521 | deadurl=no}}</ref> the older of two sons (himself and brother Keith) of Grace Caroline (née Swanson (1895–1997) and Glenn Lucius Hefner (1896–1976), both teachers.<ref>[http://books.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ted Bundy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Daniel Ek. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:MOSLQ

BMK (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, that the Heisman presentation is made in a theatre in Times Square (at least recently) does not have any part in making Times Square "famous". BMK (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Upper Manhattan

Nowhere in the source attached to the content at the Linda McCartney article does it say "Upper" when referring to Manhattan. Please change your addition of "Upper" to the article as incorrect and unsourced. What you've added - according to your edit summary - is original research. You've been here long enough and I know you know better than to try to add something unsourced like this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Your latest edit

At the Jackie Kennedy article, regarding your latest edit here, I'm going to request you revert it back. There is currently a discussion on the talk page about the usage of last names per MOS. You can take part there, but really shouldn't change anything in deference to the discussion and possible consensus reached there. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine Arts

You are incorrect in regard to this edit. When McCartney was college age, Fine Arts was a common major, especially for women. Please replace it in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Internet - internet

If you wish you had a dollar every time you may not make as much as you think. Are you sure it needs a capital every time, as opposed to when it is part of a company name or at the start of a sentence? Telephone doesn't have a capital all the time, for instance. Britmax (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed clarify matters; thank you. I thought the Prohibition example was a very good one, by the way. Britmax (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Child protection policy

Edits like this one and this one you made are unacceptable. Do keep your POV out of your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Flyer22 Reborn: I was here to post something and just saw your comment. For what it's worth, I might have made the same changes for encyclopedic tone. It seems that often the more brief and dispassionate the better. And the article makes it quite clear that she committed and recommitted crimes, which caused her to be on the sex registry and serve jail time. I don't know anything about the addition of unsourced material, but of course, I agree that should not be done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, were you agreeing with the reverts to Anthony22's wording? If not, it seems you read the above links backwards. Changing "Fualaau" to "her child lover" and adding "for the illicit liaison" is not encyclopedic wording. It is POV wording. And Anthony22 has made other problematic edits to that article in the past, and those were reverted. SarekOfVulcan was right to revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Flyer22 Reborn:, Yes, I am agreeing to the reverts to Anthony22's wording - and are consistent with my experience working on the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article. Sorry that I wasn't clearer. I know that there are cupcakes that follow, but it was a way to smooth over the back-and-forth that we've had on the article. When I saw good edits, I pointed it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey

Great job editing, polishing, and clarifying items in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article!--CaroleHenson (talk)

Again, great editing! I reverted the last edit because it was an attempt to limit close paraphrasing. Sometimes the facts in the case made that job pretty tough (only so many ways to word some sentences).--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Although we may not always see things the same way, it's clear to me that you want to make the Death of JonBenét Ramsey the best possible article. CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Security cameras

Yes, they are commonly called this. More often than anything else, in my experience. Britmax (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination

I noticed you changed the wording on the Kennedy assassination page (talking about Oswald) from "mortally wounded" to "mortally shot". I'd like you to reconsider that change for a couple of reasons: 1) "Mortally wounded" is a much more common phrase-Google turns up 575,000 results for it, while "mortally shot" brings up less than 8,000, and it drops to less than 7000 if you exclude "mortally wounded" from the search for "mortally shot". 2) A mortal wound, is, by definition, a fatal one, regardless of how it happened. In this case, "mortally" is a synonym for "fatally", and I don't think anyone would argue that "fatally wounded" implies the chance of recovery. Almostfm (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anthony22. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing color

I have no idea why the cop gets "black" assigned to his name and function. It is entirely possible that "white" is the transparent normal in Mountain Brook, an overwhelmingly white community, and the richest in Alabama--but perhaps you could consider adding "white" to every incidence of a white person in our article. Or are you inserting that term to suggest something? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

Hi Anthony22. Thanks for your series of thoughtful edits. You'll notice I undid or modified a small number of the changes you made, and several of my edit summaries might be less than fully illuminating. I'm limited to typing with one hand at present, so long summaries are challenging. If anything isn't clear, please don't hesitate to ask. Hope you have a happy new year. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Atomic bombs in Truman's article lead

Hi Anthony22, regarding your edit today of Harry S. Truman's article, mentioning the bombs in the lead: I don't know if you saw there was a recent discussion of that subject on the talk page under "Recent edits." Personally, I agree it should be there, and I wouldn't remove it, but it might need further discussion. However, I wouldn't say Truman is "best remembered for..." because that is subjective. I actually remember him best for being a fellow Missourian. RM2KX (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I see that the bombs are mentioned already in the fourth paragraph of the lead, and again in the text of the main article. So now I'm thinking it may be redundant in the first paragraph. Actually I'm thinking the whole lead is way too long, so whatever you want to do is appropriate enough, I guess. RM2KX (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Joe Kennedy's plane

Hello. Since someone fixed your errors, I'll not revert your edit to the JFK article. I will point out, however, that Gen. Doolittle said the plane exploded, so please don't try to "correct" that fact in other articles. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017, John F. Kennedy

Hi,
As I am impressed by your contributions; I really dont want to do this, but i have to do this. So here i go:
Kindly read Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#John_F._Kennedy. If further disruptive editing takes place, it will need to be reported to WP:ANEW.

This was mainly done because of two other editors (not you). But I thought you ought to know about the incident. Thanks, and I apologise again. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for your contributions related to JFK. Thanks a lot for your contributions. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

A page that you have edited in the past, Ted Bundy, has an active Request for Comment here. I'm pinging experienced editors who have worked on this page in the past to ask for their opinion. Thank you! Rockypedia (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not engage in disruptive editing as you did at Sean Spicer (see [6]). If you wish to experiment please use the SANDBOX. Continued disruptive editing may result in a block on editing privileges. Quis separabit? 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till and Central Park jogger case

Your name appears on my Watchlist a lot today, but that's not a bad thing. Thank you very much for your relatively minor fixes that make big improvements to the readability of both articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal

Hi,
I am not sure if this edit should be reverted or not. Also, there has been many edits which need attention. Would you please take a look at the page history? I am not much familiar with Clinton, nor this particular article. My knowledge is limited to a few Kennedys, Eisenhower, and related persons to that era. Thanks a lot for the consideration of my request. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: I apologise on behalf of my firefox browser; because of a glitch, it blanked your entire talkpage, and saved one conversation. —usernamekiran(talk)

Trump

Good work improving the writing at Trump. That gets little attention since not many are good at it. I'm good at it, but I lack the motivation! I agree with pretty much everything you've done there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mistaken "changed present tense to past tense" edits

Hello. You have been making a series of grammar changes to articles like John McCain and Ted Kennedy and Bill Gates under the edit summary "changed present tense to past tense", all of which are incorrectly motivated. Instances include this edit and this edit and the edit. To take the first one as an example, there is nothing wrong with the sentence "He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers". The "flying" in it is not present tense. Like -ing verbs in general, it is tenseless – it gets its tense from the main verb of the phrase or sentence. Thus, "she was flying", "she is flying", and "she will be flying" are all valid uses of "flying" in three different tenses. In this case, the main verb of the sentence is "became", which makes the whole sentence past tense including the "flying". (If you are really in doubt about this point, consult some sites on English usage such as this one.) Therefore there is no need to change the sentence as you did to "He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers". While there is nothing wrong with that sentence per se, it is a bit duller and more verbose and lends to more repetitive prose overall, whereas the use of "flying" in the original helps the prose have a more varied style. Thus these changes of yours are ill-advised. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

More than two years and several warnings and requests later, this is still going on.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong net worth

I'm sorry but you made the wrong net worth well if it wasn't you I apologize but the real and 100% accurate net worth is 85.7 billion dollars Bigman999 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The net worth is wrong!!!!

Please change it to 85.7 billion. Bigman999 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett sister

There's other coincidences too. (ie, Gregg Allman and David Bowie die of liver cancer at 69, David Bowie and Alan Rickman die of abdominal cancer at 69 in the same week, Gene Cernan dies the same day as a picture he took is on the main page (which admittedly made it into the article for a while), Walter Becker and Glenn Frey die at 67 of complications from surgery, etc) Will all of these be placed into the article too? Also, I google searched for something like "farrah fawcett sister death cancer 62" and didn't get any notableish results.

Versus: "Coincidentally, she died on the same day that American singer-songwriter Michael Jackson died."

"Media coverage of Lewis's death was almost completely overshadowed by news of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on the same day (approximately 55 minutes following Lewis's collapse), as did the death of English writer Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World."

"Coincidentally, he died on the same day as Airplane co-founder Signe Toly Anderson."

"She died on the same day as Airplane co-founder Paul Kantner, also aged 74." (okay, these two didn't overshadow each other, but still...)

The Michael Jackson coincidence was mentioned because it diverted media attention quite significantly (ie, a google search, I figure anything there mentions Farrah Fawcett) while I can't find single source with anything on her sister. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks

Please don't remove these from song titles; they're supposed to go in quotation marks per WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Minor works. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

boarding schools

RE your summary on Donald Trump: There are indeed public boarding schools. See Canadian Indian residential school system or Residential treatment center for example. Meters (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Youth detention center would be another example, perhaps one which some would wish had been used in this case. I have no commenton your edit (didn't bother looking at it), I'm just commenting on the content of your edit summary. Meters (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to educational institutions, not reform schools or drug rehabilitation facilities.

Anthony22 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The native residential schools are nothing but educational institutions, and the other institutions must function as schools when they hold children. No big deal, I just thought that your edit summary was a bit too definitive onteh point. Meters (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line, the wording of that caption is the product of consensus at the talk page, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65#His faux military uniform. It should not be altered without consensus, and I have reverted your second attempt at rewording it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Kaepernick

Please don't make Wikipedia make value judgments in her own voice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

Anthony, please slow down with your editing at 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. If you change something and someone reverts the change, go to the talk page and talk about it. SHOUTING your opinion in an edit summary[7] does not count as talking about it. Repeatedly changing the lede sentence when other people are changing it back calls for discussion, not simply changing it again. [8] I have seen your work on other pages, and I appreciate your methodical approach, doing many small edits that mostly do improve the article. But: trying to impose your own version over the objections of other people does NOT improve the article and is not the Wikipedia way. Please don't revert these things again, and please do come to the talk page and see if you can reach consensus about them. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

...and you are still edit warring - this time over the word "standoff". There is a discussion at the talk page about that very phrase, see "the opening section doesnt match with the chronology below". Please help at that discussion, where we are still deciding how to handle the real problem: the fact that the existing sentence (the one you restored) implies that his dead body was found 11 minutes after he started shooting. Now THAT is inaccurate. This article is still under development, and highly experienced editors are working on it; please become part of that process. You do not get to just keep imposing your own preference and ignoring the community. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Melanie:

I did not initiate the use of the word "standoff" in the article. I don't even know if there was a standoff. He might have committed suicide before the police arrived at his hotel room. As I said, there are a lot of inaccuracies and false statements in this article.--Anthony22 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And I asked you there and I ask you again here: please identify specific inaccuracies and false statements, so that we can correct them. --MelanieN (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony22 and MelanieN: - Related to this [9] in what style guide are you referring to where "Room" is always capitalized like this? -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: AFAIK I wasn't involved in capitalizing the word "room" and I don't think it should be capitalized. And Anthony, there you go again: you made a change (room --> Room); somebody undid it; and you immediately reinserted it, citing only your own opinion. You need to STOP THIS. Your behavior, insisting on your own edits even after someone else has undone them, is in danger of becoming disruptive - and I don't use that word lightly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - Apologies for the mixup, I meant to just inform you of the situation, not to put any blame on you. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony22: - As MelanieN said, your editing is veering into the area of disruption. We've tried to assume good faith but if you're not working cooperatively after repeated warnings, then perhaps you should find another article to edit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Joachim von Ribbentrop

Anthony: As opposed to GA and FA rated articles that have already been vetted, I would suggest "sinking your teeth" into some lower rated articles. There are plenty that need copy edit and grammar work. Here is one for a suggestion, which could also use some edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. The article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest: "At about 2 p.m., Oswald arrived at the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle (1920–) questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time.

This is also on the Oswald talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.68 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits at the Dinosaur page

Given your extensive editing history, I am sure you can understand the fact that featured articles have gone through the collaborative revision of many editors.

This means that, being a featured article, there is a reason the intro of Dinosaur is written the way it is.

Please do not change it without discussing on the talk page.

Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

Hi Anthony22. That's a lot of edits in succession. I hope to get a chance to go over them individually sometime over the next day or two, but I don't want to conflict with you if you're planning on making more. Re the out-of-state hospital (I happened to mouse over that diff on my watchlist), I really don't suppose that needs to be said unless you can find a source that makes something of it. It's pretty routine to transport gravely ill patients to larger hospitals farther away. I can check, but my guess is that the Ft. Collins hospital was better equipped than the Laramie hospital, probably a mid- or high-level trauma center. If he'd been taken to the local hospital initially, they'd probably have transferred him to Ft. Collins anyway, and precious time would have been wasted. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, you can also temporarily revert all of the edits in one go, like I recently did, to look at all of the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I might do that. I've been waiting for a good time when I have a free hour or so and am not fatigued, because I'm quite sure that some of the recent changes are not improvements—and there are so many to go through. I'll see if I can get to it tonight. I'm always a bit disappointed when I try to engage another user in conversation and fail, especially a user whose edits I often agree with, but I guess it's slightly weird mentioning it on that editor's talk page. :-p Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack Ruby calling Oswald "good looking" and resembling Paul Newman(lol)

• laughs* I was surprised when I read that on the article. I actually hunted Knight's testimony down just now, thinking to myself “there is no way that Ruby would have said that” and.. well.. I am still questioning how on earth he pulled that Paul Newman comparison, as they don’t really look alike to me at all? But I cracked up when I read this because it actually made me imagine Oswald as a movie star for a second. Just look it up.

And I’m just going “if you thought he was goodlooking, why on earth did you shoot him and rob the planet of his pretty face?” at Ruby non-stop right now, sorry. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.155 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What new information? If it's unsolved it can't be called a murder

I'm telling you that we don't know, and that it cannot just be tossed in unsourced. Britmax (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Meghan Markle

There have been questionable edits on this article today, and many were reverted. But so far I have agreed with every single edit you have made, Anthony. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Request editing of Jack Ruby article

The Jack Ruby page is in need of some revamp. Past tense, etc.

Sourcing

Please take better care with what citations you insert and don't use subpar quality sources in articles, especially for contentious personal claims, even if the person is long dead. What we need are publications that overall are known for fact-checking rather than those that often fabricate things. We want articles to be accurate instead of filled with questionable content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SNUGGUMS; if needed, please refresh your recollection by reading: WP:RS. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anthony22. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Oswald’s whereabouts?

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Up the down upcase

At least we are on the same page. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits at Chapter 27

Given your extensive editing history, I am sure you can understand the fact that good articles have gone through the collaborative revision of many editors. This means that, being a good article, there is a reason the page Chapter 27 is written the way it is. Please do not change it without discussing on the talk page, seek consensus before editing again. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Scott Peterson

Hi. Thanks for the work you did on the Scott Peterson article. I think that most of the changes in wording you made may have been for the better. However, I reverted some of your edits for the following reasons:

• Per WP:SURNAME, Wikipedia generally does not refer to the subject of an article by their given name. Aside from those instances when their first name is given (or when it's an exceptional case like the entertainer Madonna), we use their surname.
• notice that you've been warned more than once on this talk page for adding material to articles that is not supported by cited sources, and I noticed that you did this in the S.P. article. For example:
  • You added years of birth and death to Jacqueline "Jackie" Helen Latham, even though that is not found in the citation that follows that information
  • You changed multiple mentions of Peterson reporting his wife missing to read that Laci's father reported her missing. This is also not found in the cited sources, which state that Peterson made the report.

Even though you may not edit as often as I do, you've been editing Wikipedia for almost as long as I have, so you should know by now that you should not add information to articles that is not supported by inline citations of reliable sources. Nonetheless, I appreciate all the tweaks of wording you made that improve how the article reads. Thanks again! :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tonya Harding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boxed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh and federal law

Thanks for helping out with Charles Lindbergh! Anyway I found this edit the statement "upgrade kidnapping from a state crime to a federal crime." IMO this "upgrade" wording isn't accurate, because in the US state law and federal law are in "separate sovereigns" or separate realms. Congress established kidnapping across state lines as a federal crime on top of kidnapping already being state crimes. Since they are separate realms, a person may be prosecuted under both state and federal law for the same criminal act, and this does not violate the double jeopardy clause. http://volokh.com/2013/06/13/cert-petition-asks-court-to-overturn-dual-sovereignty-doctrine-in-double-jeopardy-law WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the Lee Harvey Oswald article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald trump

Hey, I reverted some of your edits - apologies. I'd like to point out that, while in this case it doesn't matter so much, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses., and thus not Selective Service System registration card either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I see you received a similar notice on May 3, 2016 but they need to be given once per year to have effect. Please be especially aware of the WP:1RR requirement at the Donald Trump BLP. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Anthony Weiner, 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. He did not resign from Congress because of sexting with minors. REad the article more closely. Meters (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anthony Weiner, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per WP:BRD take this to talk or leave it alone. Your source does not say that there was more than one minor, and it does not say that he resigned from congress because of the case involving the minor. Meters (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Monroe

Hi,

Once again, please be very careful not to introduce mistakes to the article. It's very tiring having to correct them. Remember that this article has gone through a thorough review before. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I have to agree with TrueHeartSusie3. As I suggested above, as opposed to GA and FA rated articles that have already been vetted, I would suggest editing some lower rated articles that actually need improvement; also, please use discernment when making changes and "re-working" text. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you possess the self-awareness of how bad your edits are?

Judging by the numerous people who have tried to raise this issue with you on your talk page, the fact that you actually did a revert and not just steamroll your atrocious grammar and overlinking back in is some sort of progress, I guess. TheValeyard (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you've made a total of five edits to your user talk page. 240 edits to talk pages overall. Not a talkative one are ya? It'd be nice if you responded more to some concerns. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the 1RR restriction currently in place (the edit was by no means so serious that you needed to continue to incite aspersions by calling a typo "vandalism", you clearly are not taking this ruling very seriously nor the page restictions nor my warning earlier on the talk page) this type of behavior is not allowed on the page Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Oswald's behavior when shot

When he was shot, Oswald didn’t went out right away, because you hear him moan a few times.

Jim Leavelle’s article crites an interview by Doctor Robert McClelland, in which he says Leavelle spoke of having "leaned over Oswald and said, 'Son, you're hurt real bad. Do you wanna say anything?' He looked at me for a second. He waited like he was thinking. Then he shook his head back and forth just as wide as he could. Then he closed his eyes."

Should it be possible for you to add any reference be made to Oswald’s last moments, or can you find any more information to the story?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.90 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.12 (talk)

Police hearsay

Police generally don't show up to any crime scene until after someone calls them, which happens after the crime. This doesn't mean they don't investigate it to learn what happened. They pass their account onto reporters, who pass it onto us. When we pass it on to readers, it makes sense to tell them where it came from. So this edit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not particularly bad or anything, just a bit confusing. How does it make sense to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

I learned a long time ago not to pay any attention to hearsay, no matter WHERE it came from. Initial accounts of crime scene activity or any other activity are usually riddled with inaccurate information. Police officers dole out false information just like anyone else. If you want the truth, go directly to the source.

While we're on the subject of the police, I have made the observation that nobody breaks more laws or regulations than the police themselves. While they're on patrol, they go through red lights and stop signs in non-emergency situations. They also use police identification badges to park their private vehicles in no-standing zones when they're off duty.

I try to stay away from anyone who is in possession of a gun, the police included. A long time ago, somebody cracked a joke about the police: "What's the difference between cops and crooks? They wear a uniform and get a pension!"

I wouldn't try to count the number of times that off-duty cops have been involved in DWI crashes.

This is the reason why I deleted "According to the police" from the beginning of the sentence. Anthony22 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I think it belongs. You're far from alone in distrusting police, especially in America. If we told readers where we learned the story we're selling them, they can choose to take it with (or without) a grain of salt. When Wikipedia uses its own voice, people trust us more. If what we heard from police turns out to be false, people will feel Wikipedia lied to them and our institution takes a knock it didn't deserve. If they know the police say these things, it's on the police, good or bad.

A good rule for veryone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Anthony. The facts stated in that sentence are entirely uncontroversial. How about taking a brief look at a random sampling of other shooting articles, and let me know if you see any that attribute the date and location. If we need attribution there, we also need it for about 90% of the other wiki voice in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this was 6 days stale and probably settled, but I'm leaving my comment just in case. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(If Hulk intended the "According to police" to apply to the entire section, (1) that isn't how attribution works, and (2) again, see similar articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

Why did you deleted the link for "Mass shootings in the United States" from the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" article? The "Mass shootings in the United States" article lists the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting". They have an important connection. Doug4 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4 (talk • contribs)

I did not delete the link. Somebody else deleted it. Anthony22 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit [10] is not helpful as we have to keep WP:NPOV in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Bare URLs

In regards to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Its fine if you want to add additional 2nd sources to things, but could you not use bare URLs? Not only for preventing link rot, but to follow the already established citing methods being used in the article. Thanks WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I second this request. You can quickly generate well-formatted citation templates by using the "cite" menu in Edit toolbar or VisualEditor, and pasting a URL, DOI or ISBN. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good advice in general. At that particular article, at least as long as I'm around it, I'm going to clean up virtually any cite created by automated means for cite consistency within the article (and some automated means don't even conform to all cite guidelines). That being the case, it's little additional effort for me to go get the cite parameter values using the URL. Any bare URL won't be in the article for more than about 24 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editing

Hey, Anthony22. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Today you did 24 edits at Hillary Clinton, introducing (in the most generous analysis possible) three clear typos[11][12][13]—how can an editor who presents as a stickler for good copy editing, very often using a lecturing tone in their edit summaries, be so careless about copy editing?—and one factual error[14]—in a high-visibility BLP article. If you had corrected more errors than you created, those 24 edits would be a net positive, but most of the improvements were not error corrections but rather marginal improvements in wording. I don't think I saw a single correction to a clear error. Therefore your editing session was a net negative.

I am not going to follow you around to clean up after you. I worry that few other editors will examine your edits closely, so many of the errors you leave in your wake will remain in articles for an unacceptably long time.

I have asked you to slow down, and you removed that without responding. I'm asking again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I concur; your re-wordings on Donald Trump often correct things that don't need correction[15]; add unecessary words; confuse wording - the sentence is saying that since his ascendancy that sentiment has increased, not after his ascendancy studies have shown Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will take your advice and slow down. I will state, however, that the majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written. Everyone makes editing mistakes, but I think that the majority of my edits are constructive. Anthony22 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, your editing session at Clinton was a net negative. In other words, the article was better before it. I could have made a good case for rolling back all 24, but I didn't. If most of your sessions are better than that one, good for you, but I don't know why that would be the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It would have been wrong to roll back all 24 edits, because not every edit was counter-productive. Many sentences are too long for easy reading, and people in photographs are often identified from right-to-left instead of left-to-right. A couple of months ago, I made several edits to the article on Adolph Hitler. A number of errors were corrected by my edits, and I even received a few "Thank you" notifications on those edits. Yet somebody came along and rolled back all of the edits, and the prior mistakes were reinstated. Does that make sense? Certainly not. Also, over the years I have uploaded many interesting photographs into Wikipedia articles. A number of those photographs have mysteriously disappeared FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON. Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles. The editor could be grade school dropout, a convicted felon, a terrorist, a spy, a child molester, or a serial killer still on the loose. An article is not necessarily improved by a revert. You can take that from somebody who knows. Anthony22 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak to other cases about which I know nothing. If you corrected actual errors, they shouldn't have been rolled back. In this case, the case for rollback would have been that (1) the article was better before, (2) there were no error corrections, most of it was improving wording beyond what most editors expect and most readers need, (3) four errors were introduced, and (4) why should I or any other editor spend our limited time correcting errors made by editors who don't have inexperience as an excuse?
Anyway, as you know, I didn't roll back. Instead, I spent about 35 minutes of my limited time reviewing your edits and quietly fixing your mistakes, and I did you the courtesy of saving my criticism for the relative privacy of your talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you of the fact that I corrected more mistakes than I made. This is the reason why all of my edits should not have been rolled back. Also, what makes you think that a talk page involves relative privacy? An editor's talk page is open and available to ANYONE who has access to the Internet, and that includes most of the people on the planet. A talk page is not like email, which IS private. Anthony22 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the word "relative"? I suspect a language maven such as yourself knows what that means. My point is that I didn't lecture in my edit summaries for all to see (as you do so often and so annoyingly) or start an article talk thread about your editing.
I can assure you of the fact that I corrected more mistakes than I made. - As I've said, you didn't correct any mistakes per se. If you don't know what I mean by that, simply compare what you changed to the four errors I linked above. You made some copy editing changes that were tangible improvements, some that we didn't really need, and four errors that could have very easily been avoided. But you didn't correct any mistakes. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the FBI director, what makes you think that "embattled" is an unnecessary word and a mistake. Use of this word as a descriptor is strictly a matter of opinion and not necessarily a mistake. A person who is fired is usually embattled.

On the issue of "relative" privacy, an edit summary is also relative privacy. A lot of people read articles without going into the edit section to make edits. Also, many people who do make edits do not bother to peruse the edit summaries of other people. A user's talk page and the edit section both involve "relative" privacy. The theory of relativity applies to journalism as well as physics. Also, no matter where you go, it's impossible to avoid mudslinging. Anthony22 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted "embattled"—and that's a different article from what we're discussing here—but I did think the word was unnecessary when you added it and I support the revert on that basis. That's literary tone, not encyclopedic tone.
Since you're intent on debating a minor point about relative privacy while ignoring the main thrust of my comments, I'll leave it with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of the "embattled" revert. I thought all of the reverts were done by you. You have to understand, however, that there's a distinction between a "mistake" and an edit that involves judgment or opinion. "Mistake" and "judgment" are two completely different things. It's a mistake to say that Trump did not fire the FBI director. It's judgment or opinion, not a mistake, to say that the FBI director was embattled when he was fired. Anthony22 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with my comments, which were limited to your editing today at Hillary Clinton. Have a good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Odssf.com as a source

Hi Anthony22 . I noticed that you used odssf.com as a source for information in a biography article, Jeanine Pirro. I had hoped you might join the RSN discussion a while back about it, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#odssf.com. I'm going ahead and removing it from all articles. Let me know if you think this could be problematic in any way. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Good job!

Really nice work on the Bill Cosby article. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, these are the edits I was talking about when I wrote that.[16] I just looked them over again, and I still think they improved the article. I know that there is now an AN case about Anthony22's edits, and I am purposely not expressing any opinion one way or the other on what is being discussed there, because I haven't looked at the history of edits myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you think the word "born" needs to be there twice? 32.218.35.124 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice use of the word "born" at the beginning of the sentence. Thanks for calling that to my attention. I made the fix. Anthony22 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't find your edits helpful

I reverted many of your edits at Audie Murphy. Generally, featured articles don't benefit from continued wordsmithing. Further, I get the distinct impression that you're editing just bend Wikipedia to your preferences, not to improve the encyclopedia. This sort of arrogance will not do. You show contempt for our community by editing in this fashion. Please stop. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, once again. As another editor stated in relation to your changes to the FA rated Marilyn Monroe article: "we really do seem to go one step forward and two steps back with many of these post-FAC edits". Please keep that in mind. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris Troutman and Kierzek: I'll third that, and I've said as much - in detail - on at least two occasions on this page. I'd estimate that about a quarter of these edits are clear improvements, and the rest range from annoying changes from one acceptable wording to another acceptable wording to clearly worse wording.
At Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for a typical example, Anthony22 feels strongly that "transparent book bags" is unacceptably ambiguous because "transparent" has multiple senses. As if the meaning isn't clear enough from the context that the school wants to make it harder for students to bring prohibited items to school.
I sought the advice of a respected admin and they advised an elaborate, multi-step course of action that would have required an unreasonable amount of my time and introduced undue stress into my life (I don't care to make this a personal project). I would strongly support a proposal for TBAN from copy editing, if such a thing exists. Clearly Anthony22 is not going to respond in a significant positive way to complaints from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, "thru" will probably be the correct spelling in 30 to 50 years. It just isn't quite yet. GMG^talk 00:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that the user's changes to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting are less than useful. Insisting on changing from "transparent" to "see-through" is not really an improvement (the original source actually used "clear"), but at least it's better than his or her subsequent attempt to change it to read "see-thru". Meters (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm forced to agree with the other editors here. Your edits have caused problems in multiple articles that I've seen so far: this is a partial listing of the issues I've seen with your work, in the limited variety of articles (namely sports-related ones) that I have an interest in. Bearing in mind that I don't edit politics articles or numerous other pages where you are active, the volume of concerns in a limited sample size raises alarm bells for me:

• This edit to the Monroe article mentioned above introduced Find a Grave as a reference. This is a user-generated resource, not unlike Wikipedia, and is the very opposite of a reliable source. It shouldn't be used in any article, much less an FA.
• This edit, this one, and this one introduced bare reference links into the Monroe article. These edits require time-consuming cleanup from others after the fact, not to mention that the references likely aren't as good as the books that article relies on for the bulk of its sourcing.
• This edit to Babe Ruth again introduces a bare link, which I had to clean up after. Again, this is time-consuming for others. If you're going to add references, please take the time to format them properly so others don't have to spend valuable editing time doing so themselves.
• Going back a little farther, in the edit summary here you state, "I guess that the score and the numbers told the story". This strongly implies that you didn't check the given source before adding this bit. There's no reason not to have done so, because the source is available online. It would have taken only a quick read to show that the information was not in the reference, but you didn't do that and I had to spend time taking out the unverified addition.
• For a copy-editor, leaving "when they started season at 41–3" in an article is really sloppy. Please take the time to review your work in preview mode and prevent these kinds of glitches from sneaking into articles. We all make mistakes, of course, but why not try to make sure your edits are polished so the readers don't see errors such as this?
• Most concerningly, this is a totally unsourced addition that introduces jargon that many readers won't understand. The "one and done" concept didn't even exist in the subject's day, so there's no reason to even bring it up in the first place. Even if it did, the fact that you're putting jargony content in without citation is highly worrying. Someone who has been here for 12 years shouldn't be making edits like this.

I don't know what should be done here. This editing is clearly problematic, but I don't see how a topic ban against copy-editing could possibly work. All of us who edit Wikipedia copy-edit on some level when working in mainspace. Nothing short of an indef block or full ban is going to solve this, I'm afraid. That is unless you, Anthony, can stop making these questionable edits altogether and stick to simple typo fixes and the like. I must confess that your lack of a response here makes me more amenable to supporting a block or ban should it come to that, but I sincerely hope that your editing improves so that things don't reach that point. No one likes having their work criticized, but please do take what we're saying to heart. It will make your experience on Wikipedia better, as well as ours. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There are tons of ways to contribute to the encyclopedia that don't involve copy editing. Many important things are no less important because they are "under the covers" where their effect is not immediately apparent to readers in the prose.
For just one example, I'm currently working my way through a long list of the most-viewed articles, changing "px" values in thumbnails to the equivalent |upright= parameters per WP:IMGSIZE. This conversion is necessary for the user preference for thumbnail size to have any effect, and I consider that important to the encyclopedia. This is something that has been neglected for years and I felt it was time somebody actually implemented the community consensus rather than leaving it on the WP:WIP pile indefinitely.
For another example, citations are fundamental to the encyclopedia, sloppy or incomplete citations are a widespread problem, and one could make a career of cite cleanup.
Starting perhaps at Wikipedia:Maintenance, any intelligent editor should be able to find some type of work that (1) the encyclopedia needs, (2) they find rewarding, and (3) they are good at. I'm sorry but copy editing is not your forte, and if you continue on your current path you are probably approaching an involuntary retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm another editor who finds Anthony22's edits problematic. One particular issue I keep seeing is his insistence that "-ing" verbs indicate that the present tense is being used and that they have to be reworded to the past tense. See recent examples here, here, here, and here but there are dozens of other instances. I tried to explain to him at User talk:Anthony22#Mistaken "changed present tense to past tense" edits above that "-ing" verbs are tenseless and that they take on the tense of the main verb of the phrase or sentence. But as usual with this editor, there was no response and he keeps on doing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If the past tense is incorrect, then revert it back to the present tense. When I first began editing in Wikipedia, I was informed that the past tense usually supersedes the present tense in articles. It's OK to use the present tense for breaking news. Mickey Rooney performed a long time ago. It's rather silly to think of him in the present tense. Anthony22 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not understanding. Yes, most WP articles are supposed to be written in the past tense, and certainly ones like Mickey Rooney. But the sentence In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era. is not written in the present tense. Here "spanning" and "continuing" are tenseless. The tense of the sentence comes from "appeared" and "was", which are in the past tense. Thus the sentence was correctly in the past tense and there was no need to change it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see I'm not the only one. Mickey Rooney: 'In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era.' You have 'replaced present tense with the past tense' and changed it to 'In a career that spanned nine decades and continued until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era.' The first sentence is already in the past tense- as one can readily tell by the verbs 'appeared' and 'was'. I can only assume you wrongly believe 'spanning' and 'continuing' to be verbs in the present continuous, which they're not. These are gerunds, and they are without tense, as they function as nouns.

I would politely suggest that an inability to understand how gerunds work in a sentence should perhaps result in fewer copy edits, as this is, frankly, very basic grammar indeed. It's quite worrying to think that you're madly changing Wikipedia articles as you believe that gerunds cannot be used in an article about anything that took place in the past.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Usain Bolt

Hi Anthony 22. I just wanted to take you up on your edits to the Usain Bolt article.

You changed, 'The rush of medals continued as he won four golds...' to 'The rush of medals continued when he won four golds...'

You changed 'Bolt had become the school's fastest runner over the 100 metres distance.' to Bolt had become the school's fastest runner in the 100 metres distance.

You changed 'Speaks with' to 'talks to'

I am a qualified EF/SL teacher and I'm passionate about grammar. Indeed, I often make minor edits myself, but only when I believe that a mistake has been made or the sentence is not as clear as it could be. The changes you have made above simply cannot be seen as corrections; they seem really just to be alternative ways of saying the same thing. The only reasoning I can imagine that lies behind them is that your preference is for what you changed them to. I don't think that's particularly helpful. Everything in English can be rewritten and keep its meaning, but that is not to say that it should.

Overall, I believe that respect should be given to the original author. This means not changing copy for the sake of it, but rather to correct mistakes, remove ambiguity or, perhaps in certain cases, to increase readability and (rarely) elegance. None of these applies to the few edits I have highlighted above. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Audie Murphy. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, you have a dozen other editors above telling you that you're being disruptive by wordsmithing featured articles. If you want to be useful, join WP:GOCE. If I see you make a problematic edit again, I'm dragging you to a drama board and you'll face consequences. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FTR, my complaints have not been limited to featured articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anthony22. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anthony22. 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)

February 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lee Radziwill. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Lee Radziwill, if the information on her place of birth (New York City) was poorly referenced or controversial, you should have reverted the edit back to Southampton. The sources that give her place of birth as Southampton are also poorly referenced and unreliable. Just out of curiosity, how do you determine what source is truthful, reliable, and worthy of inclusion into the article?

In my edit summary, I explained that New York City was a better choice over Southampton because Radziwill was born on March 3, which is winter. I don't think that the Bouviers spent winter in Southampton.Anthony22 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's original research. Sources are required, not optional. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oswald’s whereabouts?

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has suggested in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man” (a very blurry image of a man in the TSBD doorway in the Couch film who, the author and others claim, was Oswald). Plus, it's a new original theory, and it does put Baker's claims into question and seems to suggest that Oswald's claims of where he was at the time Kennedy was shot have been misinterpreted. I am aware it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. If it cannot go here, then it more properly resides on the conspiracy theory page, If realible sources for this research can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest with the words, "Oswald was taken to the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..." In various interview since the 1970s and up to the mid 2010s, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony).

In the course of my research into the JFK case, I encountered a number of examples where I had testimony or accounts by people from 1963/64 as well as from years or decades later. It became apparent that the testimony and writings from 63/64 were superior. These were obtained when the events was still fresh in their memories, and as a result were clearer, usually more detailed, and consistent with what other people wrote or recalled at the time. Whenever I had conflicting accounts by a person to deal with, I would use the earlier of the two. As Jim Leavelle’s interview testimony to the Warren Commission were so specific that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, and that he had never talked to him before. I would place no value on second-hand information based upon various interviews with Leavelle which had occurred over two/three/four decades after the event.

Bart Kemp has done an article looking at the differing accounts, called "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's interrogations" that can be found on the internet. Kemp is pro-conspiracy, so be warned if you want to read it. :)

Should the words "homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit" be removed and/or Leavelle's warren commission testimony used instead? I read his WC testimony again; Leavelle never "interrogated" Oswald about the JFK assassination or Tippit murder on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, or any other day. He merely "spoke" to Oswald about the upcoming transfer while Oswald was changing clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Please be far more careful with the sources that you choose. Please check WP:RSP, search WP:RSN, and ask for help if you are not sure about the reliablity of a source. [17][18] --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [19] [20] --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

Huh, yeah he is, but I'm not up to a discussion about it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your attention and improvements on the Monroe articles. A good Wikipedia-style collab, because of your putting attention onto those pages and their images I thought of adding the two images of Monroe at the Kennedy birthday function to Happy Birthday, Mr. President, and they make the page look much better. Well, anything with more Monroe makes something look better. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree; once again, many of your edits are not an improvement and some have changed the context and meaning of RS cited points made. Especially with the main article, which is rated FA as you well know. It is a waste of editors time to have to read through your personal preferences and original research to revert your disruptive edits. Sorry Randy, you and I usually agree, but I’ve seen too much of this guys “editing”. So Anthony try for a change to work with editors towards consensus instead of disruption. Kierzek (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kierzek. I meant specifically the series of comments and edits which resulted in eventual good changes in the Kennedy birthday song article. I agree that some of the edits are not helpful, and hopefully Anthony is taking accuracy and the readers understanding of POV nuances into consideration of each word. Better to improve the page, but if a few editors are questioning many of the edits the talk pages seem the best way to sort the thought process out. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits can be classified as original research, constructive, destructive, disruptive, or vandalism. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a constructive or disruptive edit. The majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written with all kinds of grammatical, punctuation, sentence structuring, and spelling mistakes. Very few people have a superior command of the English language, and that includes college graduates who took the wrong courses (humanities, philosophy, history, theology, English literature). How do you arrive at a consensus? That is a very difficult thing to do. No two people have the same mind or the same opinions. For example, two people will see the same motion picture or read the same novel; one person will say it was fantastic, and the other person will say it was terrible. Debating is essentially a waste of time and effort.Anthony22 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to thank you again, for caring for the page and topic enough to plow through the criticism (some justified, but maybe given too harshly) and continue to add some good edits to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Language authority

If you are going to repeatedly write superior-sounding edit summaries about correct use of the English language, please at least make sure they are consistent with the English dictionary. There are multiple online dictionaries with free access. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You're back

Hi Anthony- welcome back. I am afraid I don't believe your hiatus to have helped address the issues that many editors above have highlighted. Edits like this, this, this and this all show the old bad habits of mistakes being presented as corrections and/or edits that make the text worse being presented as improvements. Please take note of the discussion above. Please also understand gerunds. I am sure you're not being intentionally disruptive and of course I assume good faith, but do please reconsider your approach.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to New York Yankees seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, New York Yankees. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 11:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Amazon (company), you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Scuba diving, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. The article clearly has the template {Use British English} and editors are expected to respect it. There is no default variant of English for articles, and US readers make up a minority of readers of the English Wikipedia. RexxS (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You are now sailing very close to the wind.

The use of "which" as the relative pronoun is normal in British English in both defining and non-defining relative clauses. Microsoft Word is not a useful authority for English grammar. In the cases where you changed "which" to "that", you are altering the English variant from en-gb to en-us again. Stop it.

Scuba is now considered an anacronym, that is, its meaning is now fully associated with the word, rather than being associated with its derivation from the initials. This is more fully discussed in Scuba set #Etymology. It's therefore both inaccurate and original research to mislabel scuba as an acronym.

The pronoun "they" is a gender neutral singular pronoun and is generally used instead of "he" or "she" when the gender is unknown or indeterminable. Its use as the singular gender neutral pronoun dates back to Shakespearean times and is quite normal in Wikipedia. You must not go around changing "they" to "he" as you will cause offence to many editors. Whatever source for grammar you are using, it is not appropriate for modern English usage. I'm going to strongly suggest that if you can't grasp the nuances of English variations and of writing in a gender-neutral style, then you avoid attempting to correct any further articles. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: I don't know how much you know about the long history of this issue. I have encouraged Anthony22 to find ways to contribute better suited to his skill set, including specific suggestions, and he has declined. There have been numerous other editors complaining on this page; when the heat got too great, Anthony22 took a months-long wikibreak, then returned and continued doing exactly what resulted in the heat. I eventually stopped even looking at his edits, feeling forced to adopt a philosophical "not my problem" stance. I felt some time ago that some "next step" was in order, as it's clear to me that Anthony22's copy edits are and will remain a net negative to the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to José Fernández (pitcher). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Colors

Hi Anthony. You have been changing the colors maroon and gold to Maroon and Gold. Colors are not proper nouns. Imagine the sentence 'I saw a red bus'. Changing it to 'I saw a Red bus' would be absurd, and that is effectively what your edit has done. Please don't restore your changes again without discussion. Here is the best place as taking such an elementary discussion to an article talk page would be a waste of editors' time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jackie Robinson. Describing Robinson’s strikeout as “inconsequential” in WP’s voice is not an appropriate use of neutral tone. There are only five big rules - WP:NPOV is one of those. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' Incident noticeboad notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tapered (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Charles Lindbergh. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthony, but your source does not support the idea that he landed in Newfoundland. Britmax (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Lindbergh lifted off from Roosevelt Field on Long Island, From there, he flew to St. John's in NewFoundland, Canada. He did not make a stop at St. John's. He flew east from St. John's because that is the eastern tip of North America. He did not fly across the Atlantic from Roosevelt Field. For your information, the Roosevelt Field site is now a shopping mall and next door to the Mitchel Athletic Complex. I have been there many times. Do me a favor and watch the film, "The Spirit of Saint Louis," which stars James Stewart as Lindbergh. You will see the plane flying east over St. Johns. There seems to be a conspiracy going on against me.Anthony22 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem, Anthony, is that when you write "In the early morning of Friday, May 20, 1927, Lindbergh took off from Roosevelt Field, Long Island, to St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, and then across the Atlantic Ocean for Paris, France.", you give the impression that Lindbergh flew from Roosevelt Field to St. John's, stopped there, and then flew on to Paris. Any mention of the waypoint in Newfoundland doesn't really add any important information to the article and creates an ambiguity that readers might misinterpret. For what it's worth, the shortest route from NY to Paris by air almost certainly passes over Newfoundland as most airlines use that route for their transatlantic flights. HTH --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to note, a biopic like The Spirit of St. Louis is not a reliable source for facts about the historical event it portrays. Films routinely ignore historical accuracy in favor of dramatic necessity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic disruptive editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

with the best intentions...

Anthony22—with the best intentions I am trying to get you to engage in calm dialogue with others. I want the present issue to work out for the best for you. I've always enjoyed our glancing encounters. Obviously others are complaining. Therefore if I could offer advice, and I am hesitant to offer anyone else advice, I think it would be a good idea if you tried to say something to placate the concerns of others. It is being discussed here. If I were you I would just say that you are taking the points made by others to heart and that you will try to incorporate into your editing habits the types of changes they are recommending. It is the interaction that matters, in my opinion. You could calmly explain that you can and will alter one aspect or another of your editing habits so as not to arouse the ire of any of your detractors. Believe me—I'm just trying to be helpful. These are merely suggestions. You should handle it any way you want, but calm, measured input is what I'd recommend. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Anthony22, coming here from the AN/I discussion. Would you be willing to discuss this with me? I would like to see a resolution that doesn't involve messy sanctions (blocks/bans/restrictions/whatever) and I think such a resolution is possible, but only if you are willing to engage, recognize that there is a problem, and then make significant changes to the way you edit. The big 3 questions, in order, are: 1. Are you willing to talk about this? 2. Do you recognize what the problem is? 3. What changes are you willing to make voluntarily to resolve the problem? ~Awilley (talk)

OK, now it looks like you're just ignoring me and continuing on with the problematic behavior that is being discussed at AN/I. This isn't a problem that is going to just go away if you ignore it long enough. I get that you might not like talking to people, but this is a collaborative project, and at some point you need to communicate with your peers. You're free to ignore me for as long as you want, but if you're going to plow ahead with the problematic copyediting as if nothing is wrong I will block your account from editing altogether. ~Awilley (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal for a topic ban...

can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You are now subject to a topic ban

Please see Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page. This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed. You are free to continue editing Wikipedia, but you must abide by this restriction. See WP:TOPICBAN for more information about topic bans. You will need to wait six months before you can appeal this restriction. After that time, you can post to WP:AN and point to the constructive edits you've done. If you engage in any copy editing, it is likely you will be blocked, so please be careful. You can ask other editors questions if you are not sure whether an edit would violate this restriction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to block me from editing, you're blocking the wrong person. I have uploaded many excellent images that have been removed, and I have made many constructive edits that were reverted by people who didn't know what they were doing. I'm beginning to think that some editors on Wikipedia are grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful. Everyplace you come into contact with people, there is nothing but irritation, discourtesy, aggravation, and friction, and Wikipedia is no exception to this rule. There is only one place where you can escape rudeness: the Wilderness, which is basically free of people.Anthony22 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So basically your defense is "all of those editors who reverted me and all of those editors who called for me to be topic banned are grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful". Are you sure that this is the position you want to take? See Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful" Mrs. Smith told me in seventh grade I would amount to nothing, and boy, did I show her. I helped pile-on an unconstructive editor so they can't continue to deface articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God. Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isaiah NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• As explained by Mandruss on the AN/I thread which resulted in the sanction to Anthony22, A22's typical response to things such as this is to disappear for a while and then return to make the same kinds of edits. Now that he cannot make the same kind of edits, and given his implied threat to sock made on that thread, watchers of this page should be aware of any new accounts or IPs which edit in a manner striking similar to that of Anthony22. If any such editing is found, they should be reported to WP:SPI as evidence of topic-ban evading sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic bans and blocks can very easily be circumvented. A person can use the account of a family member, co-worker, friend, schoolmate, or another person to continue editing. If I were to continue editing in this fashion, you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am the culprit. As I said before, I have made many constructive edits that were reverted by silly people. The classic example of this is my upload of the photograph of Billie Burke's gravesite. The original photograph was excellent; somebody modified and blurred the original image with a new image. I re-inserted the original image but that edit was reverted. THE ORIGINAL IMAGE WAS MUCH BETTER. I must admit that I don't understand why I have wasted so much time and effort making good edits that were reverted. Wikipedia articles are poorly written with terrible grammar, syntax, sentence structuring, chronology, and punctuation. To use a classic analogy, too many chefs spoil the soup, and some of the chefs don't even know how to boil water.Anthony22 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that circumventing a topic ban can be easy ... until it no longer is. The point is that if you do any of the things you mention above, and you are found out, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely. And if you continue to do it after that, you will be site banned. And once you are indef blocked or site banned, there never needs to be any discussion about your edits ever again. An edit made by an indef blocked or site banned editor can be reverted by any editor at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. You will be fighting an uphill battle. Oh, sure, you'll have your little victories, get a bunch of edits in without anyone noticing - but for the most part you will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia ever again. You will be a pariah.

Is that really the Wikipedia future you're looking for? Right now, your sanction still allows you to edit under certain restrictions. If you continue to follow those restrictions, after six months you can ask that your sanction to be removed. If you sock, that will never happen, and the future I outlined above is more likely than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Anthony, if you threaten again to circumvent your topic ban by creating a new account or using someone else's account, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder

Anthony. After a lengthy process you have been banned from making grammatical edits. This was a grammatical edit, which (not that it matters) is wrong. You have changed the adjective first-team to a noun. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Kramer&diff=prev&oldid=916220328

I will not report this but please stop.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anthony22. Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Knock it off

The capitalization changes you made look very much like testing the limits or a breaching experiment. Don't. If you think something should be changed, post it on Talk, wait 48 hours to see if anyone objects, then make the edit. We don't need this drama OK? Please just play it safe and play nice. Guy (help!) 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I must say that I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The capitalization changes that I made are correct. I made very good improvements to the article on Barry Kramer, if that's what you're talking about.Anthony22 (talk)

That's real smart, mouthing off to the admin who shut down the latest ANI discussion about you despite calls for further action from several experienced editors.

This edit shows ignorance of not one but two MOS guidelines, WP:SURNAME and MOS:POSTABBR. I have corrected it on both points. Please improve your game if you are going to make this type of edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of the surname rule in captions. Go the Jennifer Jones article and down to the Section of Biography. You will see a photo of Ray Corrigan, Jennifer Jones, and John Wayne in the Section. I changed the caption from Jennifer Jones to Jones, and they changed it back to Jennifer Jones. This is what I mean about reverting my good edits. There is no double-standard with respect to surnames. Wikipedia moderators can contradict themselves. I have had many good edits reverted by people who didn't know what they were doing.Anthony22 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My advice to you is to stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting ANI's time. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

So you got incorrectly reverted once on a SURNAME edit, and, instead of using the talk page and pointing to the guideline, you stopped observing the guideline in other edits? How does that make sense?

In many cases you can even avoid being reverted in the first place, if you link to the guideline in your edit summary, as I did in my correction and do in most of my edits where a guideline applies. I don't get reverted much, both because I know the guidelines and because I show I know the guidelines by linking to them. The shortcut names are not exceedingly difficult to learn if you put your mind to it.

And your contribution to the project is multiplied with little effort if you educate less experienced editors by pointing them to the guidelines via your edit summaries. At least some editors will click through and read that stuff. If it's truly about the project and not your own needs, doing that is an easy decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Anthony22, you are under an editing restriction. That very rarely happens in cases where the editor agrees that what they did was bad. We use restrictions because other people judge that some editors' actions are disruptive in some way that the editors do not see for themselves. I understand that you don't see the problem. But other people do, and since you're already under restriction, and nobody wants to see that converted to blocks or bans, I am counseling you to play it straight and don't give even the slightest hint of testing the limits of the restriction, please. Otherwise this will almost certainly come up again and next time you are likely to end up blocked. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Anthony I'm sorry to come in again but when your edit summary is 'replaced ambiguous wording with more specific wording' it's impossible not to. That is almost the exact description for what the community has expressly asked you not to do. Please just don't do wording or grammar edits. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You were warned above not to test the limits of your topic ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The next block will be for a month. After that, it'll be an indefinite block. You are not allowed to make stylistic or grammar changes to Wikipedia articles ("copy editing"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I will now repeat the advice I gave you a month ago: Stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a boomerang for wasting our time. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Except for the error in changing quoted text (superfeminine), my edits over the last couple of days were NOT disruptive. If the stylistic or grammatical changes are correct, that is not a valid reason to extend the block.Anthony22 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's either a stunning failure to comprehend the meaning of the TBAN, or a stunning display of contempt for it. Either way, it's stunning. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22, you need to read Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1 and User talk:Anthony22#You are now subject to a topic ban again. Print the second one out and tape it up next to your monitor.

EIGHTEEN uninvolved editors looked at the edits that you keep insisting are "not disruptive" and determined that, yes, they are indeed disruptive.

What part of "topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia" are you having trouble understanding?

Do you see any sentence that says "topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia unless they are correct"??

No? Then OBEY YOUR TOPIC BAN AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Your continued refusal to abide by the restrictions the community has placed upon you is a great way to end up blocked indefinitely. Is that what you want? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm just noting that this still seems to be an issue, looking at today's series of wordsmithing edits to Leon Czolgosz. Since this topic ban has been in place for weeks, I'm not sure where the disconnect is. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The edits to Leon Czolgosz are not wordsmithing. "Assassination" means death. Technically, McKinley was not assassinated until the day he died. This is similar to Robert F. Kennedy and Anton Cermak. A defendant cannot be charged or accused of an assassination while the victim is still living.Anthony22 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your topic ban mentions that you can correct certain inaccuracies if you immediately follow up with a note on the article’s talk page. That seems especially important in cases where you are citing technicalities to make wording changes. Was this addressed immediately on the talk page? What are we missing? Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is at Anthony22 again. Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.

The diffs presented at ANI make it clear that you have repeatedly violated your topic ban. Unless you change your behavior, an indefinite block is highly likely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been banned from copy editing.

I would classify this as a copy edit.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Tolan&diff=926518526&oldid=926505647 There are others of course. Please don't make this type of edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anthony22. Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusing to adhere to your topic ban.

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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a staggering difference of opinion on the issue of constructive versus disruptive editing. I still maintain that the vast majority of my edits are constructive. If you go over to the Talk Pages of William McKinley and Elin Nordegren, you will see that I made constructive suggestions for correcting obvious errors, but the suggestions were ignored. Wikipedia editors would rather keep these errors in place than admit that I might be right. William McKinley was NOT assassinated on the day that he was shot, and Tiger Woods was never a nanny.

On the Issue of Anthony22, what makes you think that Anthony22 is a "he"? I could be a woman in disguise. Do you remember the songs "Judy in Disguise" and "A Boy Named Sue", which are more than half a century old? I could be a girl named Anthony22. Also, I'm certain that you've heard of Susan B. Anthony.

Concerning my topic ban, I could have a large extended family and several friends who would let me edit Wikipedia on their personal devices. Would you be able to recognize my modus operandi?

I'm glad that you had brains enough NOT to revert my edits on Natalie Trundy. I knew her entire family personally many years ago. Her mother and father were excellent people.

Anytime two or more people get together in the same environment, there will be friction, aggravation, and differences of opinion. That's part of life. As said before, the only way that you can escape aggravation is to trek into the wilderness, which is void of people. If you go to Bob Marshall's article, you can peruse the photographs that I took of his final resting place in Salem Fields Cemetery. Marshall was greatest wilderness activist in the history of the United States.Anthony22 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's no longer a topic ban. It's now a indefinite block. You are not allowed to edit any topic, using any IP or account. Meters (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It didn't say Woods was a nanny; it said Nordegren was a nanny--though an unkind reader could read it differently, and an unkind editor could cite it misleadingly. This undoubtedly was one of the things that led editors to support that topic ban (which I disagreed with)--this conviction, the unwillingness to listen and to see things another way. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts, advice & some help

What? I am a little flabbergasted. I have read, briefly, through the ANIs and the original comments and diffs, and find myself unsure of the whole mess.

Anthony22 - While I appreciate the mess will probably have made you feel a little anger, please bear with me here. I did lol at the "why do you all think I am a man?"

Anthony, some of your edits are not as good as you might think. I have only looked at twenty or so, mostly from the ones brought up at ANI, and a couple from talk pages we were directed to.

Of those, at least 50% were, IMHO, correct. I will just use one, the Jennifer Jones picture.

All the other pictures use ONLY her surname. That is the only one out of five pictures in that section that uses her first name, six in toital:

"Jones as Bernadette Soubirous"; "Jones and second husband"; "Jones and Montgomery Clift"; "Jones with husband"; and finally on the star at the bottom of the page, "Jones' star on"

This was NOT grammar, nor style, this was consistency. IMHO this is outside the topic ban. It should be corrected. I have changed it to:

Jones with Ray Corrigan (left) and John Wayne (right) in New Frontier (1939)

You also made other edits, prior to the permaban, that were correct, but viewed in a negative light. The problem is that it appears you did not seek any assistance, knowing it need fixing you changed it rather than tell someone it needed changing (it definitely is NOT a shrine, NOR a memorial, but a monument; from the Latin "monumentere", "reminder"!).

There are places you could have possibly turned. GOCE, for example, is the guild of copy editors. I am sure someone there would have helped you, I know in my active time there I would have at least tried to show you where you were going wrong, and how to spot whether a change was better or not.

And that, in a nutshell, is an important skill on Wiki. When to NOT change something! Yes, a person's style or grammar might annoy you, but quite often it is better to do NOTHING, and to raise issues on the talk page.

In one edit, you changed some wording, and i want to use this as the example of where HELP might have made a difference to the outcome to date.

Why? Once everyone started to call for bans and revealed that "the issues has gone on but we did nothing", not doing anything was a warning bell in the run on that second ANI.

As far as I can see, no one ACTUALLY OFFERED HELP.

Please take this in the spirit is is meant Anthony22, help!

You read the text "Both the President and the Attorney General were concerned about King's ties to suspected Communists [...]" in the JFK article.

You changed it to "The President and the Attorney General were both concerned about King's ties to suspected Communists [...]".

I understand where you were coming from, but would offer this as MY thought process, from MANY edits done on articles from stubs to those up for an FA nomination.

I read your edit as "This person and that person were concerned about two things, the communists and... hang on, where is the other thing they were concerned about?"

Looks at previous edit, then diff ... "Ah! He completely changed the context of the sentence - the old edit said that two people were concerned about X and Y, but he has changed it to mean two people were concerned about two things."

I would have reverted that edit. You made something crystal clear into something which needed clarifying or fixing.

Many other edits from before and between ANI 1 & 2 were fine, but misunderstood by people correcting them, simply because you were banned.

And that is the mess, half his edits were good edits, and should have been corrected after reverted. I hope that those that reverted ALSO went in and corrected. Leaving bad info there in a hurry to report someone leaves an EVEN BIGGER MESS for us poor editors to sort out.

Anthony22, please do NOT give up. Do NOT sockpuppet, do NOT try and get around the sanctions.

You really do have a talent, but your grammar is not up to the standard you might think it is.

Please think about the edit, if you can now see WHY it makes the sentence worse, then great!

I would try to encourage you to read up on copyediting, and when you can, get in touch with GOCE and see if someone is willing to help you.

Some constructive help

I have gone over 20 of your edits, specifically from June 7 2018 to June 10/11 and here are my findings (your changes in boldface):

On June 4, 1972—four months before his death—the Dodgers retired his uniform number 42 alongside those of [...]

Adds info, good edit.

American professional baseball second baseman who became

Good edit as he was not just second baseman

heralded the end of legal racial segregation

Bad edit? Your edit summary: added "legal" to sentence. 1947 was long before the Civil Rights Act, and in those days there were no government laws that prohibited racial discrimination in sports

If there were no laws, how could it be legal anything? (the word you added). Perhaps "legal", or more explanation as to why there was a discrepancy - "legal" racial discrimination; though the end to discrimination would not happen until X.

withdrawing after being diagnosed with cancer

Good edit - it could have been his wife, child or dog and you made it specific to him.

In 1997, MLB "universally"

You removed the quotes, but do not actually say why in your summary: removed quotations, which are positively unnecessary

Are they? Why? You do not tell us, so we have to doubt whether the edit is correct. The problem is this - in 2015, the article was a FEATURED ARTICLE.

Why is this a problem? Well, it was a featured article - the pinnacle of Wiki articles. Guess what? It still is!!

This is probably one of those times when an article might be better being left alone. In trusting the FA process, one has to understand that many many editors have gone over it and queried the text. That "universally" now needs to checked in the FA passed article, is it there or not - if not, I would agree that it might need changing. The article passed FA in 2009.

"Major League Baseball retired his uniform number, 42, across all major league teams." - when it passed FA in 2009

"MLB retired his uniform number 42 across all major league teams" - currently, today

I have to agree to your edit, but removing the whole "universally" is the right thing to do, not just the quotes. "across all major league teams" is both more accurate, and also means "universally" - so duplication as well.

More importantly, it would have restored the article back to the way it was when it reached FA. NOTE - READ THE THIRD ONE DOWN FROM HERE!

Giuliani and New York City Fire Department

Good edit as it is indeed, not the department, just Giuliani and another man

Reagan died of congestive heart failure at the age of 94.

Good edit, it was messy and you correctly turned two sentence parts into a sentence by removing the comma

MLB universally

Excellent! You removed the 'universally', restoring it to how the editors thought it should have been at its best! Well done!

The date "April 15"

Good edit adding material - and this is important, content creation is equally as important as content correction, if not more so.

"In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until" -> "In a career that spanned nine decades and continued until"

Bad edit. The important part of the sentence is "... shortly before his death,"

Why? Because he is not dead yet. When copyediting, we strive to: keep in the present tense in fiction, as per MOS; only change things where necessary.

"ing" is present, "ed" is past. There is confusion though, as the sentence continues "and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era".

We also try to change as little as possible. I would have left the original, and changed "he appeared" to "he had appeared".

(talk page)

n/a.

after John Dillinger was killed there by law enforcement officers

Good edit - removed first name, corrected to specific FBI.

Talk page entry querying photo authenticity

Good - asking for the opinion of others, rather than just changing something.

Purvis was at his home in Florence, South Carolina, when he died from a gunshot wound to the head; the shot was fired from the pistol that was given

Good edit. Your summary says it all, and the prose is much better after you reworked it.

his double sprint victory in world record times at

Good edit, flows better

"Bolt was born on 21 August 1986 [lots of text and refs in the wrong places] in Jamaica. His parents are Wellesley and Jennifer Bolt." to "Bolt was born on 21 August 1986 to parents Wellesley and Jennifer Bolt"

Good edit

He has a brother named Sadiki and a sister named Sherine.

Bad edit. You turned that into "He has a brother, Sadiki, and a sister, Sherine."

Why? Because you split the sentence into not just two, not three, but four parts!!! How about "He has a brother called Sadiki, and a sister called Sherine."

The strange part is the "named". The question is, why did you not stop yourself? If you read this written by another editor, you would remove the sentence parts!!

So, as little change as possible, with maximum impact. Other editors spend hours writing things in their own styles. Try to edit as they would, and only correct things that really really need it :)

Bolt had become the school's fastest runner over the 100 metres distance. -> Bolt had become the school's fastest runner in the 100 metres distance.

This sentence is tricky. The problem is not "over", the real problem is "distance".

While i understand what you were doing, the grammar is still wrong after your correction because "over...distance" is correctish, and "in the 100 metres" is also correctish.

Personally, I would have changed it to "at/in the 100 metre sprint." This also differentiates it from any other 100m race.

The rush of medals continued as he won four

Good edit correcting "as" to "when"

achieved by smearing vaseline on the lens

Good edit (necessary?) - Good addition of info about the location of suicide, but I'm pretty sure we all know it was the lense of his camera (yes, I speak English English :¬) ).

While the modern world can apply digital blur, I do understand this might have triggered the addition, it is probably not necessary.

Conclusion

Your edits are, on the whole, rather good.

I cannot understand why you had such a bad slating, although I do understand how your frustration got the better of you and led you to some silly decisions, the mentions of sockpuppetry and continuing to edit grammar without playing by the rules.

I do think you had a bad time there, as I feel no one actually looked at your edits in enough detail before the sanctions, and afterwards the quality was irrelevant as the action was too non--specific and could be interpreted to be all things to all men - half of the accusations of sanction busting were, i feel, necessary and correct..

I wish someone had spoken up for you, as the 20 edits i have seen are bloody good work.

I hope you can make some attempt at redemtion and return to editing. While I can see there is a problem with perception of your actions, especially the sockpuppetry, your edits are by far of good quality and with god summary every time.

The only issue I see is your lack of interaction and insistence on not communicating. I put that down to impatience.

I also find it EXTREMELY irritating to have to ask a question on a talk page before i change something, but it is by far the best policy.

Leave a note saying what you intend, leave it 14 days, then go back and re read your intentions. Then, if no one has replied, go ahead and change things!

It was difficult at first, but as time goes on, you might find others that think the same way as you.

I am sad that you are blocked - Ithink that you would make a geat copyeditor if only you could control the urge to plough ahead.

Consensus is the backbone of Wiki, without it we are a disorganised anarchistic mess and more time is sent correcting by people who should be creating!! Chaosdruid (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You are not helping. The problem cannot be solved by pointing out that some edits were good. Enough were bad that the overwhelming consensus of the community was to impose a topic ban. Anthony22 violated the topic ban again and again, Anthony22 was blocked for doing that again and again, and Anthony22 refused to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The one thing that really doesn't make any sense is reverting my edits where I corrected obvious mistakes. I refer specifically to the articles on Leon Czolgosz and Natalie Trundy. The Czolgosz article states that William McKinley was assassinated on September 6; that is a false statement because he died on September 14. I corrected that mistake but my edit was reverted back to the false information; that is stupidity. Natalie Trundy's maiden name is Campana, NOT Campagna; I corrected that mistake but my edit was reverted because the information was not sourced. That also is stupidity. I would like to inform you people that the most amazing thing I have ever witnessed in my life is the stupidity of people. A classic example of this is drivers who speed at 70 miles per hour during a snowstorm.

I have also uploaded many excellent photographs that were removed for no legitimate or logical reason. I can assure you of the fact that I could continue editing under a new or borrowed name. An order of protection cannot prevent a man from killing his ex-girlfriend. I have to admit that I am also guilty of stupidity for spending countless hours editing on Wikipedia, only to have the edits reverted. Editors don't get compensated for their time and effort, but they do get a virtual kick in the stomach. It seems that every place I go, there is nothing but aggravation with people. I am going to be tempted to leave my estate to environmental organizations. The only way that you can escape aggravation is to get away from the asphalt jungle.Anthony22 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

BAM!^^, right here Anthony22. This editor, Chaosdruid, has written a whole pamphlet to offer you powerful help. Instead you continue winning as though you didn't even hear the offer, and you say in the same breadth that editors efforts are not respected. I've really wanted you to concede and get through this, but otherwise I support the block. Whatever you may have heard, this reply above here exemplifies the whole thing. All the other arguments are extended by this attitude. There is no way at your level of English that you cannot understand this. It is obvious you are proud of the account so it is up to you. You are restricted from copy editing and someone with the respect of the GOCE offers to guide you... There is no horse high enough to get over the hurdle in the above response, i.e. ignoring the goodness out of it.. I'm sorry for the delay in the input. You'll have to concede. Even I think I have a good chance of spotting you at checkuser. My IP range covers my whole country out of like half a dozen IP providers and it's next unblock review will happen after 3 years blocked, like 10-20% of my whole country, so when they block your whole state/country, you'll know for sure what you should of done, but you won't be able to do it any more. o/ ~ R.T.G 14:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: "The one thing that really doesn't make any sense is reverting my edits where I corrected obvious mistakes", this is why you were blocked indefinitely. The community gave you a topic ban. You were not to correct obvious mistakes but rather to point them out on the article talk page. Nowhere did the tropic ban say "exception: you can freely violate your topic ban if obeying it really doesn't make any sense."

You were blocked for 24 hours for violating your topic ban. You went right back to violating your topic ban when that block expired.

Then you were blocked for 31 hours for violating your topic ban. You went right back to violating your topic ban when that block expired.

Then you were blocked for 1 week for violating your topic ban. You went right back to violating your topic ban when that block expired.

Then you were blocked for 2 weeks for violating your topic ban. You went right back to violating your topic ban when that block expired.

And now you are blocked indefinitely for violating your topic ban. You can not go right back to violating your topic ban when this block expires, because it never expires.

Re: "Editors don't get compensated for their time and effort, but they do get a virtual kick in the stomach. It seems that every place I go, there is nothing but aggravation with people", I also don't get compensated, but in 13 years and 48,000 edits I have never felt kicked in the stomach and it seems that every place I go, there are mostly friendly and helpful people. If you are having problems getting along with others everywhere you go, you need to seriously consider the possibility that the problem is you.

You need to drop the WP:STICK now. Either post an unblock request or stop posting. If you keep on posting about how your block doesn't make sense and how your many fine contributions mean that the rules about not violating your topic ban don't apply to you, you are likely to end up with you talk page access revoked and this page blanked or archived. ---Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of American democracy, but that doesn't seem to apply on Wikipedia. Now you're trying to tell me that if you don't like what I say on my Talk Page, you're going to blank or archive the page. Nobody controls the American media, but Wikipedia can modify, censor, or delete what an editor says. In other words, if I say things that you don't want to hear, you're going to erase what I say. This reminds me of a socialist government, where people can be prosecuted for speaking out against the establishment.Anthony22 (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Another Wikipedia rule that Anthony22 thinks only applies to other people. What a shock. Did not see that one coming.

From Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process:

"A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active. A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened."

I am going to stop responding to you now just in case my responses are the cause of you ranting on about "socialist government, where people can be prosecuted for speaking out against the establishment". I will check back in a week or two, and if you are still going on about this without actually posting an appeal as specified in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks I will request that your talk page access be revoked.

Re: "The freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of American democracy, but that doesn't seem to apply on Wikipedia.", please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an anarchy or forum for free speech. Or you can read this helpful public service announcement. I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

[redacted]

Was he banned form talking on his talk page? NO

Did he say anything bad? NO

What is going on?
Sorry Anthony, but it seems your inability to follow the rules has taken over any sense of value of you to the community.

I urge you to simply give it a break, think about how to follow a rule even though you think it unjust, then try and appeal your ban once you understand the community driven aspect.

[redacted]

Best wishes. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

[redacted]

Now, how can you punish me for saying that I wonder ... Chaosdruid (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: He won't need to, because if you make a personal attack like that again, or go any further in enabling Anthony22's disruptive editing, I'll block you to prevent you causing any further problems. You are helping neither Anthony22 nor the community. Please take this a serious warning and reflect on what you are doing. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the reverts have been disruptive, and some of the blockers should themselves be blocked. Blocking is an essential element of football, but it's terrible on Wikipedia. A storm pattern seems to exist from Cape May to Block Island. Dan Blocker would have made an excellent editor on Wikipedia. Block Block Block!!!!!!Anthony22 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of making a personal attack.

I was, however, responding to what I thought was a personal attack.

Telling me I was "enabling disruptive behaviour".

Please continue on my talk page, I just need to know how I am supporting disruptive behaviour, and how I made a personal attack. This is not sarcasm, I just do not understand. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)