You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Thanks for uploading Image:Johnnyhodges06021965a.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The image page's metadata indicates that you scanned this image. I am assuming you are not the person who took the original photograph in 1965. You tagged this image with {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} but did not indicate the source of the image (which might clarify whether a Creative Commons license is actually applicable). -- Gyrofrog (talk)
I saw your info at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Johnnyhodges06021965a.jpg, I have taken the liberty of translating this and adding it to your English-version photos. (Also, I assume you meant to use the same Creative Commons license for the Brubeck photo?) Your photos are impressive, I hope you understand it was hard to believe that someone didn't simply scan these out of a book, etc. Have you considered uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons? From there, they would be immediately accessible to all the Wikipedias. Thanks! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there have been some requests at Talk:Saxophone for more pictures of famous saxophonists. Do you have any more jazz photos where perhaps the saxophone itself is more prominent? Thanks again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about my english - I hope in few days (when my PC is repaired - usb-input is defect!) I'm able to scan more photos or better negatives from this time. But I'm not sure, if I have so many saxophone pictures you wish. During this time (1965-1970) I've take pictures from several bands (Basie, Brubeck, Ellington, Jimmy Smith etc.) but the photos are in several boxes and I have to look which ones. -Dontworry 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that picture of Joey D! --Janikus24 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Most of your edit history is tagged as minor edits, yet are not "minor" in the Wikipedia sense. Any addition or deletion of material, even a single word, is "not minor" on Wikipedia. It is made worse when none of them are explained or justifed with an edit summary. Please have a look at:
Help:Edit summary - "Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better"
You may also want to disable the "Flag all edits as minor" option of your account Preferences, which is only intended for editors specializing in actual minor edits. -- 62.147.113.114 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
Furthermore, reverting the WHOLE article one week back to your old July 2 version (diff), just to get back your preferred blog-format version of a SINGLE section of the article, is vandalism.
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
(diff of vandalism) Your reverting to a 10-day old version, just because you prefer the reverse chonological order of one minor section of the article, destroyed all later additions, including the list of awards being doubled, a new section added, and various fixes and edit. It is disruption and vandalism. As well as the edit insulting summary not being especially WP:CIVIL.
wrong is wrong, no pills can help you! ;-) Dontworry 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted for the 4th time. You can't just switch back to your preferred version with an edit summary of "a good compromise", no you can't. And a debate is still open on the talk page, where you didn't answer any objections, and didn't provide any valid ones. You dont decide alone, especially without convincing arguments. -- 62.147.112.36 11:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't understand what you want. You tells me other articles are in your way, but I see allways other type of reverse or not reverse chronological lists (Boston, Vienna etc.) and im my opinion it's enough discussed about a list of 8 person! That's not a job, it's only a fun for me. Look for other boring users to discuss such "important" problems. Good night! Dontworry 22:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been asked to serve as mediator regarding the issue on presentation of data in the Philharmonic page. Mediation is a structured way to resolve disagreements by making conversation easier, with any party able to withdraw at any time. Would you be interested in mediation on this issue? Thanks. --Improv 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think it's not necessary (or possible ;-)). Dontworry 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop introducing single landmarks to the infobox as lead picture.
The Berlin article is a city article and therefore a panorama image is appropriate and standard.
Your unregistered edits without any argumentation are not welcomed in the Wikipedia. Lear 21 10:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able and not willing to discuss with You, whether a brand of a city up-to-date or not (that is the profession of PR-specialists). But I'm able to say, that this image (which You promote) not in such a good quality is to put it into an articel (and never change a winning team (brand))! In my opinion your profession is, to promote skylines for all cities in WP as new brand and that is the wrong way to improve the wikipedia! Dontworry 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Major cities with multiple historical, cultural and architectural heritage can´t be reduced to
one symbol. Berlin´s heterogenic landscape especially has many iconic buildings.
Thats why a skyline-picture containing various elements is used by most of the global cities. It avoids the focus on one aspect of the city and provides a panorama impression.
3) Berlin´s heritage is one of the most diverse. This
must be expressed in the lead picture. The question for THE symbol is not the appropriate one for
the lead picture in a city article. Watch New York,
Chicago, Mumbai, Frankfurt, Cape TownToronto, Los Angeles, Shanghai ,Melbourne , Washington, D.C. All of these
cities avoid THE symbol because they have many. NYC is not showing statue of liberty, San Francisco not Golden Gate, L.A. not the Hollywood sign.
Tokyo,Barcelona,Sydney also present not a single icon because there is a reason for it.
The lead picture is NOT the place for one symbol. Please respect this unwritten but very obvious
logic. Stop reducing the city to one symbol, it also denies the city´s multiple character.
4) Inform yourself better, Thank you Lear 21 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, You take a mistake, I'm improved that articel, other user vandalize resp. disfigure it with such unsuiteable images (nightshots with undefinable content). So You have to caution that people! (And I'm alltimes registered, but not alltimes inlocked - because: time is money! ;-)) Dontworry 07:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, you vandalized Frankfurt again you idiot, I know that because it's in the log. do not replace pictures without discussion. well, you are now being reported to the admins for your vandalism after your final warning, now you will be blocked for a long time Momusufan 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Frankfurt, you will be blocked from editing. Do not remove pictures from articles without discussing it in the discussion page. if you replace the frankfurt image again, you will be reported for your vandalism.
Momusufan 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an idiot, I prefer the roemer-image! ;-) Dontworry 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, your picture replacement is vandalism and it will NOT be tolerated on Wikipedia Momusufan 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a little problem with Your definition what happens! It is not usually to put a nightshot on top of an article. So change this or we do it again and again and again... and so on (I've a lot of time)! See you later alligator. Dontworry 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you keep on changing pictures when you have been warned not to, you are now violating the three revert rule which prohibits users from making reverts more than 3 times in a content dispute within a 24 hour period.
You have now been reported for your careless actions. Edit warring is taken seriously and is not tolerated.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. This is your last warning. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dontworry. I am concerned with your changes to Grossmarkthalle, and would ask you to discuss them there. I am also unhappy with the language you have used to describe my contributions there. athinaios | Talk 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wieso hast du ein problem mit deutsch [1] ? Dontworry (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misunderstanding. I have no problem with German (although it is not the appropriate use for discussion on English language wikipedia). I do have problems with terms such as "nachplappern" or "rubbish", as they are rude and patronising, and not helpful to content discussion. This misunderstanding, by the way, proves that you are not entirely au fait with a nuanced use of English. athinaios | Talk 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have listed our dispute on Third Opinion as an active disagreement. I must admit that I am very unhappy with your style of editing and arguing, especially your habit of dismissively insulting other contributors, in spite of the obvious problems with your command of English. In several years on this project, I have never been drawn into this kind of exchange before. athinaios | Talk 11:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
excuse me, but i'm not interest on "filibuster discussions", for the rest of my life! ;-) Dontworry (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. I did not start this discussion. It would be preferable if you stopped using insulting language, apologised for doing so in the past, and tried to actually engage with the points made in discussion. athinaios | Talk 12:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this account for 24 hours due to edit warring. You were told how to proceed, and you didn't. When you come back off your block, please do not continue to edit war without discussing and getting consensus for your changes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edits on Horse Racing. You changed the picture in the United States section from Del Mar to Munich. Del Mar is in California, Munich is in Germany. Therefore, the American picture should be in the American section. EDIT After looking at some of your other posts, I seems that you are German. If you would like to add a section on the page under Europe about Germany, it would be a very welcome addition. I don't know much about racing in Germany, but perhaps you do. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's only, because the other image was so bad and not useful to show any (relevant) encyclopaedic information about these artikel. but, do what you want - i'm not interest to do missionary work! ;-) Dontworry (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Munich is not in the United States. That's the major point here, which is why it was removed. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's still unnecessery such bad images, without any information (about this part of the artikel) to place there! than it'll be better, you'll remove it without substitute. Dontworry (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed the reverts at wound, I started a discussion about it on the talk page and would like to invite you to take part. I urge you not to simply revert as edit warring won't work and will just get people blocked. I'm happy to help resolve the disagreement however I can, look forward to hearing from you. Peace, delldot∇. 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-adding the image of the man with a gun to Stupidity: the editors who have reverted you all agree that it isn't appropriate and doesn't improve the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please, argue in a correct way: it's not a good enough reason to revert all pictures (and more) out, when you have anything against one of three!
not any substantial argument - i've heard up to now (from you or kevin) - only those empty "bla-bla": "...isn't appropriate and doesn't improve the article..." (please note: i'm not a (60 years old!) baby and i don't believe on santa claus)!
is it possible, that you are a bit to much cowardly or opportunist and in advance for fear of being not "politically correct" (and not like that man [2]), take that?
this both other pictures, i've changed: [3]+[4] are absolut without any sense for the article.
i'm still waiting for an answer: why you remove all pictures and also that one too: [5]? Dontworry (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. As in the edit summary: it's because of WP:TOPIC, which is part of the "Writing better articles" page. Nothing to do with being cowardly (is this a personal attack?), just improving the standard of the project. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what's with the rest? Dontworry (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You once expressed an opinion re the proper topic of Traffic; that now is the subject of a requested move. See Talk:Traffic#Move. --Una Smith (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dontworry. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dontworry~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dontworry. 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.
Hello, Dontworry. 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.
Hello, Dontworry. 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.
Hello, Dontworry. 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.
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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Berlin and Frankfurt, you will be blocked from editing.
Momusufan 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. This is your last warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
