User talk:Wimpyguy

@Gran2, Wimpyguy, Martarius, and Theleftorium: I have tried to improve the critical reception section for Brick Like Me, and both times I made work-in-progress improvements, they have been reverted immediately by Koala15. As I put a substancial amount of effort into the last one, I figured an attempt to copyedit it first would be the correct solution rather than just reverting. No doubt Koala15 will have reverted it again by the time I post this, so I wanted your opinion. Please compare the version in the article to the version (a work-in-progess mind you) that I proposed, organised by conversation topics (animation, plot, gimmick, themes etc.) rather than indiscriminately copy/pasting the last paragraph of each review. Can you help me copyedit it to make it just right?--Coin945 (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

The episode received a lot more attention than a usual episode because of its unique premise (for example Tim Surette of gave a special review on TV.com, despite "[not] regularly review[ing] The Simpsons here"^[1]). Since release has garnered highly positive reviews, with praise being given to its success despite its gimmicky premise, the logical integration of LEGO into The Simpsons' universe, episode's themes, the humour, plot, and the unique animation style. Many critics commented that the episode will be considered a modern Simpsons classic, and at the very least be referred to as "the Lego episode", with many making comparisons to the similarly animated and recently released The Lego Movie. Dennis Perkins of The AV Club gave "Brick Like Me" an unusually high A- (the first A the site has given to The Simpsons since season 23's “A Totally Fun Thing That Bart Will Never Do Again”)^[2], Jesse Schedeen of IGN scored a 8.2/10 "Great" rating^[3], Tony Sokol of DenOfGeek gave 4.5/5 stars}^[4], Chris Morgan of PasteMagazine scored an 8.6^[5], BubbleBlabber gave an 8.5^[6], TeeVee gave a 4.5/5 stars^[7], and Matt Goldberg of Collider gave the episode a D^[8].

The gimmicky nature of the episode was considered a sign of creative stagnancy by some. Collider argued The Simpsons "has apparently run out of plotlines [and] continues because it can. It’s a product as much as LEGO [and] its former glory has gone to pieces", while RedHeadedMule dismissed the episode as "a messy novelty".^[9] FilmReel suggested that in the modern era, "the show tends to be better when there’s a gimmick".^[10] The surprising success of the episode despite the gimmick has been noted by many critics, saying "the two franchises simply play well together"^[11], "as pleasant as any combination of two multi-billion-dollar brands" could be^[1], and "the fact that Springfield has been LEGO-ized is frequently acknowledged and very integral to the plot."^[3] IGN argued that this show "does a better job integrating the gimmick into the greater narrative" than the similarly plotted Community episode 'G.I. Jeff'^[3], and PasteMagazine said "this Lego episode could have been tone deaf and lazy, but instead it is...one of the better episodes in recent memory"^[5]. The AV Club described it as "a miracle of an episode, a heartfelt, inventive, exquisitely performed, and tightly written half-hour...There’s no reason why The Simpsons can’t be good again"^[2], while TIME said "'Brick Like Me' shows that The Simpsons can still be inspired, weird, and sincere, when all the pieces fall into place"^[11] PasteMagazine said "it is as if everybody’s creativity got a boost from this opportunity to fool around [and] there is still the capacity for top-notch television floating somewhere in The Simpsons universe."^[5], and BubbleBlabber said the episode's humour, sweet story-line, outstanding idea, and achievement in animation, made for a "solid, memorable, insta-classic" ^[6]. The episode was described as the "latest Simpsons milestone episode"^[3], "one of those must see episodes"^[10], and "forever be[ing] known for being the one with Lego"^[1]. DenofGeek said "'Brick Like Me'...will be considered a classic, yeah. Not my favorite classic, but it is already memorable...and satisfying. In five years, fans will instantly recognize 'the Lego episode'. It was strangely exhilerating."^[4]

The episode has many deeply explored themes which were analysed by various critics. The AV Club noted the episode's clever commentary on the fallacy of the utopian vision of how we wish our lives would be (“everything fits with everything else and nobody ever gets hurt”), which is that "the joy that comes from playing with children is the knowledge that they’re not going to be children forever". This left an emotional impact on Perkins who realised "none of the Simpsons children have aged a single day, which is actually sort of sad if you think about it"^[2], while FilmReel noted "with a show where characters never grow up, it’s always sweet when they take time to recognize that kids do actually get older"^[10] Other highlighted themes include the Bart/Skinner "battle between childlike imagination and the forces of standardization"^[2], and what DenOfGeek argues to be two recurring themes of The Simpsons: "Marge is Homer’s one redeeming quality and that he’s always trying to win the love of his daughter"^[4] Many critics noted the episode's accidental similarity to The Lego Movie, with it being described as "The Lego Movie 2"^[10] and a "great homage"^[12] Critics said it was "unfortunate" that the themes and story elements may seem redundant^[3] and that "there are quite a lot of similarities...it was like watching a short version of the Lego Movie"^[12] Other reviewers thought this was deliberate: TeeVee said "methinks the Simpsons would have produced a far better LEGO-tastic show if they created their own reason for the brick alternate reality instead of parodying The LEGO Movie"^[7], while The Independent described Brick Like Me as "a blatant attempt to cash in on the surprise success of The Lego Movie"^[13]

The animation received much attention, with descriptions including "the most visually unique episode in the show’s history"^[5], "a stunner, rebuilding Springfield in bright, brick-by-brick 3D"^[1], and "the construction of Springfield is minutely detailed"^[4] TV.com described the episode as "essentially just gorgeous window dressing installed over a typical episode of The Simpsons".^[1] The episode was generally praised for its humour, satire, and plot. Critics commented "the show's trademark sight gags and goofy background signs are out in full force"^[3], "while "not jam-packed with jokes this time, [it had] no misfires"^[4], and "the jokes that hit, go right out of the park", singling out Reverend Lovejoy delivering a Lego-based sermon as reminiscent of the show's golden age: "[it] will actually have you laughing out loud, just like you may remember doing while watching the show years ago".^[10] However, IGN noted the humour weakens when it veers into non-LEGO related subject matter such as The Hunger Games parody.^[3] In regard to the plot, critics had mixed feelings, saying "not every moment works, although the overall story is one of the more touching in recent memory"^[10], "the story was just 'normal' and 'unoriginal' ^[12], and parts of the story "either didn't make a lot of sense or was shoehorned into making just enough sense that Legos could fit into the world of The Simpsons".^[1] DenOfGeek praised the "religious satire and the twist involving Comic Book Guy, [which] was well-implemented into the plot"^[4], while The AV Club praised writers Matt Selman and Brian Kelly for "ground[ing] all the brand-name silliness" in strong character development, emotional depth, and successfully incorporating a B-story in an already-ambitious plot, and Dan Castellaneta and Yeardley Smith, for "throw[ing] themselves into their roles with a commitment admirable for such a theoretically gimmicky episode".^[2]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Galloping Gertie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blind Ambition (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, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nohomersryan (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wimpyguy. Please consider to continue working on this article. Your brutal copyedits were very well done and have greatly increased its value to users by paring it down. I think there is a very good Wikipedia article hidden in there somewhere, and I would love for it to be in the mainspace. What are your thought?--Coin945 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nigel Pearson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Season 17 DVD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:I Never Met the Dead Man.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:The President Wore Pearls.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hey There Delilah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop. 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) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Terry Jones in 1969.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lisa's Substitute.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Great Louse Detective.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Alone Again Natura-Diddly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Children of a Lesser Clod.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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.

Also:

• File:No Loan Again Naturally.png

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at American Pie (song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please also see WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dave Herman.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Dave Herman.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dr. Dolittle 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Avery (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) 07:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Great Money Caper.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Smart and Smarter.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SimpsonsDuckDuckDuckDuck.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Randy Quaid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All You Can Eat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SimpsonsCards.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 30 July 2021 (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 Wayne Knight. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Idris Elba. 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. – ².O.^Boxing 19:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Peter MacNicol. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter MacNicol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private Benjamin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_unsourced/poorly_sourced_information_in_biographies_of_living_persons_by_Wimpyguy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Wimpyguy, an editor of your tenure should know not to change biographical details, especially of living persons, without citations. You've been warned against doing that only a few weeks ago. So please be very cognizant of this, because further violations of that nature are likely to result in lengthy block, possibly of an indefinite duration. Thank you. 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 ~~~~}}.  El_C 03:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there have been many notices like this on your talk page, explicitly pointing out that you cannot add unsourced information to biographies of living persons (and really, you should always provide sources, as Wikipedia doesn't publish original research). You seem to never respond to any of these messages or change your behavior. Why? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at David Dastmalchian, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Stroness. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Steve Coogan, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stroness (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Itchy&Scratchy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, wonder if you could help me out. A while ago I thought I was helping the project by starting a category for people who appeared on the tv series After Dark.

But I learned I was apparently wrong to do so, see here: User talk:AnOpenMedium#Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants

You probably care more about Big Brother and I care more about After Dark, but there doesn’t seem to be a significant difference, so has policy changed (it’s been three years)?

AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at [[: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Article. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.]]. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Kire1975 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Rebound (2005 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Arnold and Gary Owen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom Arnold (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carpool (film).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I found a source for the character name and added it, but please try to make sure the information you're adding to an article, especially one linked on the main page like Dabney Coleman, is sourced before you add it. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bart-Mangled Banner.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. Xeroctic (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:I, D'oh-bot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. Xeroctic (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Push th' Little Daisies, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Saddlesore Galactica.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mike McShane, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. see WP:DOB Waxworker (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Saddlesore Galactica.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)