User talk:TRLIJC19/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image tagging for File:Grey's Anatomy Theme.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grey's Anatomy Theme.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grey's Anatomy Theme.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grey's Anatomy Theme.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. Mtking ^(edits) 22:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving your userpage and talk page

I have reverted your move, as your userpages should not be in mainspace. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay, apologies. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Rude Boy

This is to inform you that the above article you reviewed is considered for being delisted. Please refer to the discussion taking place at here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've stated why I believe it is an adequate review. Feel free to request a reassessment, but I stand my review and I will not support this reassessment. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Callie Torres

Remember WP:3RR the three revert rule. Mtking ^(edits) 04:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC) (edited as per talk page request. Mtking ^(edits) 11:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

Yes I know, I do not believe I've violated it? TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct you did not actually overstep the rule but you were on the brink of it, my reminder was just to make sure you did not make a mistake. I recommend that you avoid the article for a day or so. Mtking ^(edits) 22:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the rule. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TRLIJC19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I mistakenly broke the WP:3RR and only by one as well as the fact that it has been a significant distance between my two edits. As well as the fact that the user Ace completed one part of the edit as it was vandalism. The edit I made was minor and was a revert of vandalism per the definition of significant other. So, even though I violated WP:3RR, I only broke it by one minor, vandalism reverting edit. That being, I think 1 week is much too great of a block span. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

3RR is not an entitlement. See WP:3RR, especially lines like: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring" and "any edit warring may lead to sanctions". You've been blocked now 3 times in just a few weeks for edit warring, so a week is a perfectly acceptable range. either way (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Song Beneath the Song

Hi TRLIJC19! I see you've GA nominated this article, and I was wondering if you'd mind withdrawing it for the time being? It's certainly not in bad shape, but I never actually got round to finishing it. The reception section in particular is very underdeveloped, and I think it would likely fail on criteria 3, for not being sufficiently broad in coverage. It is on my to-do list to take to GA, and I have a bookmarks folder comprising nearly 50 sources still to go through and consider for inclusion. I'd much appreciate the chance to to finish it up before a reviewer looks at it (or indeed, I could copy/paste you the outstanding sources if you want to work on it yourself, but it might take a little while with there being so many of them.) Let me know, thanks! Frickative 00:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course. Sorry for the inconvenience. Just let me know when you renominate? Good luck with the article and i'll try to help out. If it's not too much trouble perhaps if you want to copy me the sources and i'll add them in. Let me know. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, not an inconvenience at all! I'll definitely let you know - this was actually a welcome push to get working on it again, I never intended to leave it sitting unfinished for so long :) I'm about to log out for the night, but I'll endeavour to drop the sources off at the article talk page tomorrow. Frickative 02:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy

I admit having notes for the external links isn't normal practice. How should the GA article make clear the writer's blog won't have entries this year? Just having a bare link could cause confusion. Dgabbard (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I personally think it should be a reference to her tweet next to the link and the ref. description can be informing that the blog is suspended. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! Look at what I did and let me know if it is OK.Dgabbard (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry Dgabbard! I did not see your talk page post to me on my watchlist due to a new edit after that. I had reverted your edits because I thought you were continuing without input so I'm really sorry for that and disregard my edit summary. I have restored your edits. And yes! I do like the way you did it! I think that's the best way to inform readers of the tweet/notice. Happy editing and sorry for the confusion! TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I should have noted in the edit summary it was based on your suggestion. So everything is aok. Thanks for all you do!Dgabbard (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

You've attempted to tag this article as being "confusing" - what specific elements are you looking at when you say that? Tabercil (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Read through the whole thing. It just doesn't flow. Other user thought so as well. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to slap the "confusing" tag on the article, at least detail in the Talk page some specific examples so others can get a sense of what you're seeing. Tabercil (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll look through it and give examples when I get a chance ASAP. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; that's why I reverted you. But I wouldn't even bother due to this. — Status {^talk_contribs  04:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the new page so the confusing tag is no longer needed. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)