User talk:SomeBodyAnyBody05/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, SomeBodyAnyBody05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As for your block, if you were blocked, it was because your IP address was specifically blocked as disallowing logged-in edits, or if it had been used by an editor who had been blocked within 24 hours. The latter is called an WP:autoblock. I used to be an WP:administrator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I should add that your first edit is quite inappropriate. If I had noticed it, I probably would have given you a level 2 warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm Nick Moyes. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dalibor Bagarić without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it was a mistake as I was editing his birthday it deleted it without me knowing it.Hope that cleared up some confusion. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, these things happen, and I appreciate you letting me know it was a simple mistake. Thank you. Oh, and don't forget to cite a source to prove that the date you give is indeed the correct one. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Category, please stay around

Hello SomeBodyAnyBody05, I hope you did not take my nomination of Category:Deceased basketball players personally, as it seems you had invested a lot of time and effort in it. When I was new on Wikipedia a lot of the early categories and articles I created ended up getting deleted too. I hope you stick around, since it seems you are interested in basketball I would suggest looking into WP:WikiProject Basketball and its daughter projects. Take care. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Romeo + Juliet, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Geraldo Perez! I appreciate the the knowledgeable information you let me know. It is key to double check before adding a new page to the category. I will attempt to find cite-worthy sources to make the eligible for these categories. Thank you. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just look in the article to see if the category is supported. WP:CATVER and WP:DEFINING are the most important things to consider. If you think something belongs in a category and it is not covered in the article, something should be added to the article with references to support the category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment

I'm an active NBA editor, and have not been involved with the recent category discussions you have been participating in, nor do I generally work with categories much. I don't want to see you get burnt out on categories. One point you might find relevant is the guideline WP:NONDEFINING: if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. We are all volunteers here, so you're welcome to work on any area you find interesting. At the same time, there are lots of areas to work on besides categories too. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba! Yeah I'm just starting to get the hang of of the discussion pages. Categories to me seems like a part of Wikipedia desperate for growth and attention. But I am kinda straying away by creating a new page that you should check out. It's a NCAA Division I player, Isaac Likekele. Can you put that on the discussion for further improvements and touches? But in conclusion, I would gladly join the discussion, I just wasn't well known on it. Cheers. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As a college basketball player, he can be considered notable for an article by meeting WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASKETBALL, but he doesnt seem to qualify for either. In that case, he would need to meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Some key points are needing independent coverage i.e. not published by school or conferences he's affiliated with, and needing significant coverage, which generally excludes stats listings. You might consider creating articles through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which provides more personalized guidance. For college basketball, you can also ask for help at the talk page for WP:WikiProject College Basketball. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vampirina DVD Misinformation

You reverted my edit for the home media releases but I removed the seasons table because no such DVD exists. I don't get what you're reverting it to fake home media releases for. There has been no announcement for any season DVDs yet. Ryayan855 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ryayan855 Ok, I did some internet research and yeah I'm not finding any sources at all on that supposed realease date for that. I don't know who put the false home media dvd realeases on their in the in the first place or where they got this false information from. I was reverting because I thought you were removing information for no good reason. I'm going to revert my edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing RfD discussions

It's quite strange for someone who doesn't know anything about RfD to start administrating the area. If you are interested in RfD, I highly recommend you first start participating in discussions and getting a sense of how the place works before you start closing discussions. Also, be sure to check out WP:XFDC when you are ready to start closing discussions. It largely automates the process so you don't break the log when you close things. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tavix It's also quite strange how you didn't actually take a look into my account before coming and messaging me and saying that as I have been an active participant in CFD for at least 6 months now which is a nearly identical setup to RFD. And I not WP:Incompentent about RFD to close discussions. And I've already learned how to close dicussions by looking at the same policy. So just because I haven't been on the project as long as you does not me I don't have a clear sense of how to close dicussions. And It's not sysoping to close dicussion as that discussion was a clear example of WP:Snow. RFD needs as contributors as it can get. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that RfD could use some more contributors. That being said, it is not in the need of closers right now—especially from users who are unfamiliar with RfD. Yes, I noticed you had a little bit of contributions to CfD, but not enough where I would be comfortable with you closing discussions there, much less RfD. While I'm here, I'd like to point out that your signature is very hard to read and comes across as immature. If you'd like to be taken seriously, I'd recommend you changing it to something more legible. Also, it's "discussions", not "dicussions". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tavix, Well how long could it take before I could gain the ability to close discusssions? Also the reason I have my signature this way is I wanted to make my username stand out more, Make it more customizable. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, SomeBodyAnyBody05. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Aleisha Allen, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. CuteMeow (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:CuteMeow Well this is why you must do your research before sending me a pre created message about a irrelevant issue that has not even arose. I recieved permisson by other editors specifically admins at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_1#Aleisha_Allen to make an article for the redirect I myself nominated for deletion becasue it was no use for a BLP of an actress to be a poorly used redirect so I decided to make an aricle about her. I do not know this actress at all it's me doing hours of research. So do not send me an auto generated message that relates nothing to what your speedy del nominating it for. No advertising, publicising or promoting has been done here just me creating a page for a person that was needed. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)

@User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 I have reverted my edit for now but in future if another user will do the same thing then you have to give good reason to them also. Thanks CuteMeow (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I know I'm probably the last person you wanna hear from right now, but as I have an obligation to the community to ensure that all sides have their objections aired fairly I want to leave you with this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Deleting_an_article#What_to_do_if_your_article_is_tagged_for_deletion. The information there may be useful to you here in this case. Bon Chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The 2018 version you requested. To acoid a G4 nomination, your rebuilt version needs to look vastly superior to this version, using entirely different references, and include never before seen information. As a rule, G4 avoidance usually begins if the article can show something like a 300-400% increase in quality text and citation, although I will note right here and now that just because you avoided G4 doesn't mean it won't end up back at afd because different and expanded doesn't necessarily equate to better than before. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

HArresemtn

Over at RSN you seem to imply a user is harassing or bullying you. If this is the case report them to wp:ani, but be ware you have to have very good evidence beyond "they are being mean".Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Orangutan

Hi. Could you please withdraw your request. I already listed orangutan here for August 19. LittleJerry (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:LittleJerry, Done ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

I have restored your edit and made the citation for you. Please don't expect other editors to do this work: The WP:ONUS is on you, who added the information, to properly cite a reliable, secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have interest in working this out through discussion, I have started one at WP:RSN#Year and date articles - sourcing. I have already asked in a couple different places for this consensus but had no answer. RSN should yield some good answers for us. Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elizium23, I'll take a look at it, Thanks. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)

Harassment

I see that you have been suffering from wearisome warnings about disruptive editing from Elizium23. I have been suffering from the same problem in the last week and he has now taken to reverting bona-fide edits, which augment the pages in the same style as every other edit in the page. I am not prepared to engage with him any longer - I would rather bang my head against a brick wall - but upon have a ready ally if you wish to complain about it. Rcb1 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1

You two can be certain that WP:ANI will be a harsher experience than WP:RSN was if you choose to pursue this ridiculous allegation any further and if you refuse to conform with WP:V as we have repeatedly advised you, if you expect to keep your editing privileges. Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elizium23, Do you really want to continue to target and intimidate other editors, that won't help your case and definitely won't get me or the other editor to agree with your opinion of how the articles should be. I doesn't matter how many policy links you include we will still have our opinion and will not tolerate harsh reverts and preposterous warnings. And this contradicts your statement on RSN that this is a website for volunteers and how the work has to be tedious and monotonous is fallacious as this is a gateway and witch hunt to revert multiple good faith edits, entering edit wars and putting disruptive editing template, on not just IP users but on autoconfirmed user and extended confirmed users like me who usually try to do the right thing to contribute to the project. Your making this a hostile place to edit. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05, actually buddy, I'd say you and Rcb1 conspiring to target me is more concerning. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's in good faith when you don't know a policy and you innocently add an edit. It's in good faith when I give you a warning for acting against that policy. It's bad faith when you lash out and cry "harrassment" when I've watched your edits and begin to consistently challenge you after you've been informed of the policy. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, First of all, you are lying. I've never targeted you except attempting to talk to you when you reverted my edits and I wasn't the one who started that discussion on RSN trying to Win this battle when there wasn't a battle to be won. This editor, User:Rcb1, obviously was frustrated and went to try to recieve help from somebody who experience the same issues from you. Your continuing to target any editor who mentions your name because they disagree with your opinion on how the pages should be formatted. And misusing the templates is not good faith at all. Please leave my talk page and if you continue to edit here, That will be considered harassment because you gain nothing from this but increased tension. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05, Perhaps I've been mean and rude and coming across that way is bad to good-faith editors. I deal with vandals, sockpuppets, and other choice disruption for most of my career here, so I'll have to beg your pardon if I treat others that way by default, until circumstances prove otherwise.

Per WP:TTR I feel that using warning templates is a neutral and uniform way to communicate problems to users, whether they are new, disruptive, or acting in good-faith. I understand that many regulars are offended by being templated, and I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's how I operate; there's nothing wrong with me doing it that way.

And I have not targeted anyone; the nature of the Watchlist means that we target articles, not users. So I have targeted the chronological articles for improvement, and yes, I will continue to patrol them for policy violations, particularly WP:V, and I have been commended for this activity by administrators. So if you have problems with my activity in this regard, WP:ANI is thataway. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, speaking of ANI, there's currently a referendum there on my cruel and merciless harrassment and targeting of users with false templates, so you're welcome to join the party. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for support and I obviously agree with more or less every word of your posts. Far from harassing him: I have no intention of engaging directly with Elizium23 ever again.Rcb1 (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1

1941

Thank you very much for your help in reverting bona fide edits. Clearly, thIS problem is not going to go away, so I have edited the year 1941 according to Elizium23's edicts, to make it consistent and to try to get other editors to contribute to establishing a consensus for the future. I have put a new section on the talk page to explain what I have done and why.

I would be grateful for your input on this. As you can imagine, I think it is ridiculous to omit events such as Pearl Harbour and the births of people such as Bob Dylan from the page, just because they are unreferenced but this issue has to be addressed and resolved if conflict is to be avoided. Rcb1 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1

Dana Plato

Hello. Dana Plato shouldn't be listed pornographic film actor/actresses categories as those are for people who've actually had real/hardcore sex on screen, not just were nude or had simulated sex on screen. That is why the many actors who performed in softcore such as Shannon Tweed, Tanya Roberts, Shannon Whirry, Delia Sheppard, Julie Strain, et al, are not listed in that category. I'm not sure if there was ever a category for actors who have appeared in softcore or not. If there were, it was deleted. 'Porn' is a contentious subject for quite a bit of editors here on Wikipedia. If you feel strongly about it, you can try a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography, but its probably a long shot. Most of the active participants of that project (especially ones supporting it) have stopped editing. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:GoldenAgeFan1,Last time I checked, Soft-core porn is still considered porn in general. The status quo for that category is actors who made multiple erotic pornographic roles and not just hardcore pornography actors. There's no accepted general guideline that its should only include hardcore pornographic actors because if that was the case, there would be a category for soft-core pornographic actress as well even though that would be considered overcategorization and be sent to CFD. I also don't really feel so strongly for the categories, Its that I apply them to articles that fit the criteria for that category, such as Dana plato. She's had a starring role in a soft-core pornography film called different strokes, that I've seen fragments of and It definitely fits under the category of a pornographic movie as most of the film is those sex scenes and not much about the actual plot of the film. And on top of that, in the soft-core erotic film Bikini Beach Race, she engages in multiple sex scenes there as well. And your point of other actesses not being includied in the pornographic categories is a example of the WP:ALLORNOTHING fallacy. Just becasue those actesses aren't currently featured in those categories doesn't mean in the future they won't be added including Plato. And P.S take this discussion back to the article's talk page because that's were discssion about the articles go instead of user talk page. And also that wouldn't make sense to take a minor category dispute to a dead project page. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

A thanks for a small thing, but a thanks all the same

Thanks for getting Groundhog Day scheduled for today's TFA. That brought a smile to my face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Basketball players from...

Hi there, I am glad to see that you have started sorting the Philadelphia category we previously discussed. I ask that you please remove Category:Sportspeople from Philadelphia and Category:Basketball players from Pennsylvania while adding the combined category. This is in line with Wikipedia's expectations regarding categories. Thanks!--User:Namiba 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

American politics DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for doing those short descriptions! It's really hard work and some users revert it. Again, thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

talk pages

You are welcome to withdraw your request but do not remove entire discussions that have multiple editors chiming in as you did here. CUPIDICAE💕 18:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae, Am I allowed to close the discussion myself since I created it? Because it was gaining a clear overwhelming amount of negative feedback to my request and it is being significantly questioned as a possible copyright violation. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Write that you are withdrawing your request and comments and then leave it alone. But I think you're going to continue having these issues if you don't recognize why you are receiving the responses you are. CUPIDICAE💕 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I clearly understand why it was gaining that negative feedback because some editors have very strong feelings about copyright conflicts and overall bold edits. I never have significant hostile issues with other editors in other areas of the wiki usually, so it wa pretty alarming to see the response that I got. That's why you never really even see me on political talk pages to begin with. But we are still in the gray area if it even owned by the trump family themselves with a copyright. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to rethink your stance on this. This isn't about any editors feelings. WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy. One in which IAR does not apply. The fact that it's political is completely irrelevant. CUPIDICAE💕 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I know that Praxidcae, I been on here for a minute, so I know that the copyright policy and its violations is a serious matter with a majority of editors on the site, as it rightfully should. I made a logical error when uploading an image that I didn't believe was a possibly copyrighted image at the time. It shouldn't happen again hopefully. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your response doesn't even begin to touch on the litany of problems (and fabrications) in your statements. I won't say anything more on this matter aside from this: if you are not completely confident and cannot demonstrate appropriate licensing clearly and quickly, do not upload files to Commons or Wikipedia. CUPIDICAE💕 18:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I will continue to upload images onto Commons/Wikipedia, as I have successfully done many times before with no copyright issues. I just know not to ruffle people's feathers anymore on heavily watched talk pages. This was a accidental copyright mishap on my part and IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, capeesh? Forgive and forget, as the image is going to be deleted. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "ruffled feathers". This has to do with your violation of copyright policy on Commons/Wikipedia which either shows willful disregard for the policy, or at least negligence. The template you used explicitly says "published" - thus, it's logical and common sense that for you to apply that template, you must prove it was published prior to (insert rest of the template here). You did not do such, which suggests you didn't read the template before applying it - this is either carelessness in which case you would've re-evaluated and expressed apology immediately, or a competence issue. Furthermore, your comment at Commons which suggests the problem is "Trump's talk page" and not yourself is more evidence that you don't get it. You messed up in uploading the image. You are still attempting to attack Praxidicae and others (indirectly) for pointing this out to you. Yes, people are getting a tad heated about it, because to put it bluntly this shouldn't have to happen if, as you say, you have uploaded images "many times before with no copyright issues". Then, the icing on the cake, even after all of this, you still apparently think it is a "gray area" if the Trump family owned the copyright. I am curious as to your explanation for that comment, as there is no "gray area" in copyright if someone clearly owns it and it hasn't been released or otherwise lapsed into PD - in fact, this is one of the most clear cases of copyright possible. This isn't to mention that I doubt you've even read WP:IMGCONTENT I linked to. To offer my closing advice, and I intend for this to be my last interaction with you, I strongly encourage you to read up on policies and guidelines for areas you intend to edit - such as images - and click through blue links on the pages for those policies to read associated policies/guidelines and even essays - because it's clear that you are rushing into things before you fully understand the policies. Only you can help yourself avoid this sort of thing in the future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, So.. you've decided to come and give your copyright chastising as well? How many times do I have to repeat myself to you guys, I understand the copyright policies and I made a mistake because I believed that the image being created in 1950-1951, was exempt from copyright. I mistook "published" for "created". I'm a human behind this machine, not a robot. And when I said gray area buddy, I meant the colorization of the images. The colorization could have been created and published by someone outside of the trump family As the original version of image is in black and white and on the internet as well. And I was thinking at the time that I uploaded the photos, that the trump family may have released the image into the public domain as other politicians have done with their child/young pictures (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama etc.). And to make the case that I'm "attempting to attack Praxidicae and others (indirectly) for pointing this out to you", is a exaggeration accusement in of itself. I'm actually a very civil and helpful guy once you get to know me. You have also suggested that I may have done this on purpose, saying "This has to do with your violation of copyright policy on Commons/Wikipedia which either shows willful disregard for the policy, or at least negligence." If you actually really read my response to Praxidicae above you would have seen how I ensured him it won't happen again. And don't lie, The political side of wikipedia can be at times less forgiving, understanding and civil. And since your so keen on wikipedia policies and essays, how about you drop the stick? Some wikipedians sure have a problem following that. I've been uploading images for several months at this point and I have previously read the manual of style of images, the image use policies and the image essays. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits on Simp

Please look through the rest of the article: there's an Urban Dictionary definition from 2005, and the term had seen wide use going as far back as the 1920s. Additionally, in your revert, you have said "most likely 2019 or 2018", which implies a level of certainty unbecoming of categorization at any rate. (part of the reason I don't think it is reasonable to categorize it by a specific "year of introduction" is because it's not really a meme by any commonly accepted definition, it's a slang term, and trying to make up a specific year for something with a long history borders on WP:OR). jp×g 01:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, The early 20th century slang was cleary slang of the word "simpleton" and was not used in the modern sense now to describe a man who is over sympathetic and attentive towards women in order to be noticed by them. Those uses look to be Homonyms, words that have the same spelling but mean different things. The internet's version of simp really took off in late 2018-2019 around social media platforms and became covered by mainstream sources in 2020, which is defined in the article already as I've have previously quoted. And "Simp' is actually a meme, here : [1], [2], [3]. And it fits under the definition of a meme as well, "An element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by non genetic means, especially imitation." Here's some video compilation of simp memes:[4], [5], [6], [7] . I think it can be at least in the internet memes category as the primary source video and picture evidence by the

"internet" is there. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In this InsideHook source you link, it says:

The most widely accepted definition of the phrase, according to upvotes by Urban Dictionary users, is one posted in 2012:

– A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table. – A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason. – A man that prides himself with ‘Chivalry’ in hopes of getting sexual gratification from women.

– A square with no game other than ‘Rolling out the Red-Carpet’ for every female.

This is totally equivalent to the current usage. I don't mean to imply by this "oh, it actually was introduced in 2012", I mean to imply that if a word has been used since the 1980s[8][9], trying to come up with a specific year it was "introduced" as an Internet meme is silly, much like doing the same for "fail" or "epic" or "cringe". jp×g 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

GBA Championship Basketball

I saw you made a change last year to add "xx" to the beginning of the game name. Was that intentional? kcowolf (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Kcowolf, I think that may have been a mistake when I was editing the page at that time. I forgot all about that edit I made almost a year ago. It wasn't intentional and not in bad faith so don't worry. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05 No worries, I would've reverted it if you hadn't; I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a reason for it. kcowolf (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Walter Mondale

On 21 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Walter Mondale, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter Mondale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios. 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) 05:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Walter Mondale

You are over 3RR as well, and the only reason I haven't blocked you as well is that you did try to conversate. Do not revert the last edit. Let it be. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, No problem, will do. I will stay away from that page for the next 24 hours. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Walter Mondale. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SomeBodyAnyBody05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Floquenbeam blocked me because he believed I was edit warring in bad faith over a minor image change but I made multiple attempts to contact User:Cowardly Line on his talk page and on the article's talk page. Muboshgu gave me a final warning before I had no prior knowledge of the warning. I only continued to revert Cowardly Line's edits after the warnings i gave him because he only responded to my edit summaries in my reverts and wasn't responding to the multiple messages I sent to him as he proceeded to revert my edits. I genuinely apologize for my editing behavior and I promise will avoid Walter Mondale's article for the next 3 days after I am unblocked. I love editing Wikipedia and it is my passion and I approached this situation in the wrong manner and I regret that. I want to continue to make good contributions here. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Editor understands the rules surrounding edit warring, and has committed to avoid edit warring going forth. SQL^{Query me!} 17:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think "I made multiple attempts to contact User:Cowardly Line on his talk page and on the article's talk page" is true, though. You posted several warnings and threats starting 20 minutes before the 3RR report (which, by the way, show you are quite aware of policy), but you two primarily communicated via edit summary over the previous few days. Your article talk page post - which would normally count as trying to discuss - was literally 10 minutes after you filed the 3RR report. To me, that is more like gamesmanship than an attempt to resolve a dispute. I'll defer to any reviewing admin's judgement, and they don't need to get me to agree to anything, but my personal opinion is you and CL should be treated the same, and this unblock request is unpersuasive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, It wasn't gamesmanship, I swear. I was a bit frustrated but I didn't want that user or me to be blocked. And the difference between me and that other editor is that I have been on the site a bit longer than the other editor and all my contributions are almost always in good faith. I'll also make note of how that user continue to revert my edits after I attempted to resolve the conflict with him and gave him multiple warnings and notices. I really like editing and participating Wikipedia and I'm remorseful for my actions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't want to draw this out too much, but (a) you reported them at ANEW, and asked for "at least" a warning. I find it hard to believe that wasn't wanting them to be blocked. (b) The messages you left on their talk page weren't attempts to resolve anything, they were threats about what would happen if they kept edit warring. (c) You kept reverting after the warnings too. (d) You think you being here longer means you get to win an edit war automatically? ugh. I'm not going to unblock you myself, but as I said, I'm perfectly willing to defer to an uninvolved admin. I'd only suggest that if you do get unblocked, the unblocking admin consider unblocking CL too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, When I reported the matter to the admins, I only wanted a warning. I didn't want neither us to be blocked but rather him to be just given a warning for his behavior as he is a new contributor to the site, only making his first contribution a month ago and he may not fully comprehended with the policies just yet. A warning was the only reprimanding i wanted done when I filed the report to ANEW. I was also very willing to engage with a friendly conversation on the image choices but he continue to revert the changes and only responding after I messaged him several times with a remark on my talk page. I'll also admit that it was wrong to continue to revert that user's edits after the warning but I did it at the time because, he wasn't responding to any of my warnings and only responded to my reverts with a edit summary in his revert. And I believe you misunderstood my statement about my experience on the site. I didn't mean that statement to say I had a advantage over Cowardly Line in the edit war, I only said that because I was trying to make a point of how that almost all my edits are in good faith and how this is not behavior I will regularly engage in on Wikipedia. This edit warring incident will not be repeated if I am unblocked. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, Hey, What admins could I possibly contact to review the block? I want to present to them that this was a one time incident and that won't be repeated again if I am unblocked. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Your unblock request above puts you in a queue that uninvolved admins patrol. I imagine someone will be along soon enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, Ok thank you. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• For clarity, I see 4 reverts: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Looking at WP:3RRNO, which exemption to the 3 revert rule are you claiming here? SQL^{Query me!} 04:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  SQL, I reverted that user edits because he was ignoring my multiple attempts of conflict resolution on the article's talk page and his talk page and would only respond to my revert with another one with his counterclaim in his edit summary. They only barely responded to me outside of their reverts after I filed my original report to ANEW. I believe I should be unblocked also because I will assume good faith in the future and I have consistently assumed good faith in my previous contributions. P.S., that fourth revert was before I got knowledge of Muboshgu's final warning to not revert Cowardly Line's revert. I also have reflected on my behavior during my block and realized that it was not the appropriate way to handle the situation and I sincerely apologize for it. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  "he was ignoring my multiple attempts of conflict resolution" is not an exemption to the edit warring policy listed at WP:3RRNO. In order to lift the block, I would need to be reasonably sure that you will not repeat the disruptive behavior that led to the block. One facet of that, is demonstrating that you understand the edit warring policy, and the 3 revert rule. Hence my question above. Another facet would be a direct commitment not to edit war in the future.

  The guide to appealing blocks covers this, and is excellent reading material for someone that finds themselves in this position. SQL^{Query me!} 15:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  SQL, If you are asking if I am going to repeat this behavior, No I will not. I deeply regret my actions and I will not repeat it in future. During my time while being blocked, I understand that wasn't the right way to approach that situation. I also understand the edit warring policies and that it should never be violated even in the most minor circumstances. My contributions from now on will be entirely in good faith. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: Given the above, are you OK with me unblocking? It seems to me that SomeBody understands why they are blocked, and won't repeat the behavior that led to the block. SQL^{Query me!} 17:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @SQL: My main concern was the gamemanship in the ANEW report, and not appearing to understand they were actually in the wrong too. They do now seem to understand they were in the wrong as well. I won't let my lingering annoyance at the way the ANEW report was gamed stand in the way of an unblock. If you're satisfied, I'm satisfied. By the way, thanks for reviewing this; I don't know if you came here from WP:AN#CAT:UNBLOCK, or independently, but I was concerned that it wouldn't get reviewed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, Second that. I was reading the discussion you started on Administrator's noticeboard and I believe that non-admins like extended confirmed users should be able to file requests to admins to unblock other users if they are deemed reformed. We should have more eyes on the unblock requests. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: No problem. While I did see your note at AN, patrolling CAT:RFU is mostly what I do here these days.

  I think we're good here - and I've gone ahead and unblocked. SQL^{Query me!} 17:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Derek Chauvin mugshot April 2021.webp listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Derek Chauvin mugshot April 2021.webp, 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. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

== Help about an article, it has been wrongly edited == 

Hello, in recent days the article of an actress who has dual nationality has been modified, she is Mexican-American. This information has been verified and had been appearing on Wikipedia for years. Days ago a edit war broke out, in which she appeared simply as a Mexican or simply as an American. Currently the page indicates she has American nationality, but as I already mentioned she is Mexican-American. You have previously made correct edits to her biography, could you help me reestablish the correct information that proves her dual nationality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CabriniGreenChicago (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"乔·拜登" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 乔·拜登. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#乔·拜登 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

US president short descs

Hi, I am not hellbent on defending the changes I made to the presidents's short descriptions, but it didn't make much sense for you to only partially revert my changes. Now we have 30 biographies where the short description doesn't have an ordinal number and 10 where it does. I removed the numbers initially to get the descriptions to more closely comply with the length maximum and because it sounds strange (i.e. "the 20th president in 1881? There were 20 presidents in one year?!"). Will you continue to revert the rest, or should I change yours back? Thrakkx (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi thank you for contacting me first. I understand the point your but most readers will understand that this ordinal number is indicating which number president they were in office in order of the history of the United States. The short description I'm adding is also word for word the exact same phrase used in almost each president lede paragraph expect for James Garfield and William Henry Harrison like you mentioned. I think we should discuss a proper short description for those two specific articles but the others in my opinion seem adequate enough to include both facets of short description info. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Derek Chauvin mugshot April 2021.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Derek Chauvin mugshot April 2021.webp. 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) 13:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ashleigh Aston Moore, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DominiqueDunne1981.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DominiqueDunne1981.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) 17:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DominiqueDunne1981.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DominiqueDunne1981.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) 17:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DominiqueDunne1981.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DominiqueDunne1981.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) 17:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Third First Edit Day!

Hey, SomeBodyAnyBody05. 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) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DominiqueDunne1981.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DominiqueDunne1981.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) 02:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DominiqueDunne1981.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DominiqueDunne1981.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) 02:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DominiqueDunne1981.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DominiqueDunne1981.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) 17:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)