User talk:Andrewrp
Hi! I'm Andrew, and I like photography and computers. I am also interested in music. I play the violin and piano.
A Clean Slate
Please see my archive for archived conversations. AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see My Archive
For more info. I am doing this after my account was compromised. AndrewrpTally-ho! 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Andrew, you may wish to consider making a second account for use at public terminals. I did suspect that this was a case of an account being compromised and I'm sure you understand why it was necessary to indeff it. Sorry I wasn't around to unblock you but I work on GMT. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear sir, throwing the vandalism accusation at me, you have violated WP:AGF. Do you honestly believe that a longtime wikipedian, and admin at a sister project (ru.wikt) would fall as low as vandalizing articles? Please carefully study the paragraph in subject, and you will realize that I improved it, not vandalized. After that, I expect apology. -- Wesha (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. After reviewing the edit history, I realize that I have accidentally deleted the "|thumb" off the Image: tag. Sorry about that. But nevertheless a technical mistake or typo doesn't make vandalism. In the future, please pay closer attention. Always ask yourself question, "why was this done?" -- Wesha (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Triserv-600.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Triserv-600.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone edit 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RabidDeity (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone edit 1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RabidDeity (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Iron giant wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Iron giant wiki.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:ABC official choir portrait.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ABC official choir portrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Securel (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Irongiant4 wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Irongiant4 wiki.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hedgesville High School
Be careful of what you revert[1] to <grin>. Granted the deletion had no edit summary, but the content and history is usually worth checking. Cheers. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Your work is much appreciated. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Your AIV report on 217.43.140.62
Regarding your report on WP:AN/V, I was looking ath the edits to teh Barrow Raiders article. Are you asserting that the names the editor is added is inconsistent with the currently cited source[2]? That the source is inaccurate or outdated? Or some other problem? Please clarify. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The info was not cited.It seemed the previous players were correct.AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Survey for new page patrollers
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Andrewrp! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
BLP and discussions
The BLP policy applies to article pages and to discussion pages like articles for deletion; there is nowhere on Wikipedia where it is appropriate to insult or defame living people. I've removed your vote in the discussion, feel free to repost it without the insults. Nathan T 14:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Mitt Romney
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a soapbox
Your posts at Talk:Homophobia are unhelpful and make it harder for productive discussion to occur. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and article talk pages are not appropriate forums for you to expound on your personal views about homosexuality. Please review the talk page guidelines, the guidelines on appropriate sourcing, and what Wikipedia is not before you continue posting there.
Going forward, please use the talk page to discuss specific article content issues with reference to specific reliable sources. It's OK to ask other editors' opinions about the reliability of a source, but it's not really helpful to just spout your personal views on the talkpage and then post a YouTube video of a guy agreeing with you. If you continuing abusing the article talk page, your account may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am making a point, and my point as well as my sources are being suppressed. I want a NPOV for this article, and this is the issue. The issue is with the NAME. Also, the sources I give are RELIABLE. You, and most other liberal editors out there only consider pro-gay liberal fodder a source! AndrewrpTally-ho! 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your points have been discussed extensively. They're not being suppressed; they just don't seem to be convincing anyone. It's important to be able to appreciate that distinction.
If you think some of the existing article sources are inappropriate, you can raise that concern with the editors at Talk:Homophobia. When you do so, it's best to describe why you think the sources fail this site's sourcing criteria, rather than simply repeating inflammatory assertions. MastCell Talk 20:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your points have been discussed extensively. They're not being suppressed; they just don't seem to be convincing anyone. It's important to be able to appreciate that distinction.