User talk:Other Side One

Welcome!

Hello, Other Side One, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Side One, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Other Side One! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WOAY-TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (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) 12:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTAM

Hello, I'm Levdr1lp. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to WTAM because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Many broadcast stations have used a specific callsign more than once throughout their histories. Removing a past callsign, even if it is currently in use, may confuse other readers. Same goes for the airdates. Always try to present content as clearly and unambiguously as possible. Levdr1lp / talk 01:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of PBS member stations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rutland, Vermont (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) 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KNSD, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Branding (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) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WFME

Hi, Listen I want you to know that I removed the section about Charlie Menut's statement that WFME would move to 106.3. First there are no viable references to that statement included as a < ref > so under Wikipedia's rule it's just heresay so unless you can provide a concreate reference it really cannot be used in the article. Second Family Radio does not currently own and there are no known licensed radio stations in the Tri-State New York City area that currently operate on 106.3. Otherwise thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, thank you for adding the aircheck of WFME's sign off as a reference that is sufficient IMHO as a proper source. Also I made some minor changing to the wording about the changeover that I hope is ok with you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I changed back about the simulcast.

You revert my edit which states "Currently the station is temporarily simulcasting sister station 95.5 WPLJ and ID itself as WPLJ and WPLJ HD1 New York/WFME and WFME HD1 Newark."

to

"As of the most recent revision of this article, the station is temporarily simulcasting sister station WPLJ."

So I went back to the first because I'd like to point out that what I wrote is much clearer and to the point that WFME is simulcasting WPLJ and ID'ing itself under those two call-letters. To say "As of the most recent edit" which recent edit? there have been several since this statement was posted and it just doesn't look or sound right. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KSDK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KTRS (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) 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Other Side One. You have new messages at TheGoofyGolfer's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Other Side One. You have new messages at TheGoofyGolfer's talk page.
Message added by User:TheGoofyGolfer. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2013

Hello, I'm TheGoofyGolfer. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to WRXP because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Stop changing correct information. If you don't you'll be considered a vandal and have your editing privileges suspended. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at WRXP shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at WRXP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My only intent is to maintain a certain level of quality to the articles in which I actively edit. Other editors made changes which I felt were unwarranted and, most importantly, changed facts. I do not intend to engage an any further editing wars in regards to the article in question, but I reserve the right to make changes when necessary. Other Side One (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being right doesn't exempt you from edit warring prohibition. Max Semenik (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WVIT. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 08:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Other Side One. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Other Side One. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 08:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 08:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding WVIT

Hi, I have decided to discuss the controversy with Cowbert. Cowberg claims that there was no such discussion on WT:TVS. So, watch both his and my talk page for updates. Thank you. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 14:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at WVIT. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not engaging in an edit war at WVIT. While I acknowledge previous actions which led to a 24-hour block, I am not repeating that behavior here. In addition, I received no warning whatsoever from any admin about the potential of another block. I have engaged all interested parties in debate, including the community-at-large at WT:TVS, in hopes to seek resolution to this issue. Other Side One (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No further warning was required because you were clearly continuing the same edit war that got you blocked last time. Discussion is what you do instead of repeatedly reverting, not in addition to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment from blocking admin: "No warning whatsoever"?? Really? Toddst1 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Radiodj1520 was active on the WTNH page earlier in January and made similar additions of station slogans there (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WTNH&diff=531483108&oldid=528552555), at the same time he/she last edited WVIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WVIT&diff=531494773&oldid=531117735). Based on Radiodj1520's history (contribs), these are not good-faith edits. As I mentioned to Arctic Kangaroo, Cowbert may not have been aware of that when he reverted the WVIT article back to the version that included the station slogans. My claim of the information in question being deemed non-notable via consensus has been corroborated by another editor of TV station and related articles, Mrschimpf, on a comment left on Arctic Kangaroo's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArctic_Kangaroo&diff=534122843&oldid=533985089). Mrschimpf removed the non-notable info attributed to Radiodj1520's edits from the WTNH page as of its most recent revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WTNH&diff=534122378&oldid=531482095). Furthermore, I am a fairly new editor and am learning how to work around here. The 24-hour block was my first lesson, but the seven day block is harsh and excessive. I honestly was not engaged in, nor was seeking to start an edit war. I was only doing my part to keep the articles free and clear of non-notable, non-relevant, un-encyclopedic information. I request that this block on me be lifted so I can go back to work in making positive and relevant contributions to the project as a whole. Other Side One (talk) 9:10 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Your unblock appeal does not convince me that you understand the reason for your block, or that you will cease the inappropriate behaviour if unblocked. Blaming other editors, even if they are in the wrong, is also not a valid reason for being unblocked. Whilst your positive intent is not in question, the way you have gone about implementing it is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines; until it is clear that you understand and will abide by those guidelines in future, you will not be unblocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As you have been advised, the first block WAS the warning that future blocks would occur. Blocks are also incremental - so if your first was 24 hours, the next is longer. Finally, if after your block you immediately went back to make substantially the same edits as before the block - even ONCE - that's considered a continuation of the previous edit-war, which tells the community that you certainly did NOT learn from the first "warning". I am surprised that this is not indefinite. You may wish to fix your above request based on WP:GAB and WP:EW (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Nowhere in my previous request did I shift blame on other editors, I was only trying to prove my case against this alleged, specific disruptive behavior. I do own up to my previous actions and will make a serious effort to watch my behavior in the future. Other Side One (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Despite your denial, you certainly did try to blame others. You also denied that you wre edit warring, despite the fact that the evidence is there foranyone to see: [1] [2] [3]. If yo don't think that is edit warring then you don't know what "edit warring " means, and your assurance that you "watch [your] behavior in the future" is worth nothing if you don't understand what the problem is. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'd be willing to unblock you if I thought you understood what edit warring was. It doesn't do much good to "watch your behavior" if you don't understand what the problematic behavior was. Can you give me some indication that you understand what edit warring is? Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSO declined this offer below. I am leaving a caution that any further incidents of edit warring may lead to a long-term block. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments from talk page while requesting unblock

Please do not remove comments from the blocking admin (or any other discussion relevant to a discussion of unblock requests while the block is in place). Such information must stay on the page to facilitate other admins reviewing your block. I have restored my comments that you previously removed (above).

If such information continues to be removed, you will lose the ability to edit your talk page and it is possible that your block could be extended. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing my research on you, Mr. Toddst1, and it is my belief that what you would consider enforcement within your bounds as an admin has been seen by others as abusing your privileges. What ever happened to not biting the newbies? I will seek assistance from another administrator who may choose to give me a fair ear. Or I may choose to sit out the remainder of this block and handle real life for a while. Whatever happens, I plan to file a complaint against you at the administrators' noticeboard once my editing privileges are restored. Other Side One (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have removed all of Toddst1's comments outside of the official block templates. As he should know being an admin, it's clearly within my talk page privileges to do so, and it represents a clear conflict of interest for him as the blocking admin to make additional comments other than his reasons for the block, and whether he agrees/declines to lift it. (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Abuse_of_administrator_privileges_by_User:Toddst1) Other Side One (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the comments relating to your block from the blocking administrator, which you removed again, despite having had it explained that doing so was unacceptable.
Your talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. It was explained to you that this would happen if you continued removing the blocking administrator's comments, so it will probably come as no surprise to you.
Did you actually read either or both of the two links you gave in your message above? In the Admin noticeboard discussion you link to, there was no support at all for the absurd claim that commenting on a block by the blocking admin was "abuse", and the closing comment was "Administrators providing additional information when their actions are challenged is not merely permitted, but strongly encouraged." And as for the conflict of interest guideline, there is nothing there that remotely begins to relate to this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a fine point on what JBW said, comments from a blocking admin when an {{unblock}} request is pending is not only permitted, it is often expected of admins. Admins are accountable for their blocks and are frequently called upon to explain them. Proactively explaining them is considered good form. Usually the block message is sufficient but when there is an unblock request, admins will frequently provide additional information to make the reviewing admin's job easier.

You'll also notice that WP:BLANKING states that you may not remove "any other notice regarding an active sanction." Comments from a blocking admin to explain the block fall under that category.

Of course you're free to take this to ANI after your block expires, however I don't think you'll get the outcome you expect. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KFOR-TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KOTV (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) 11:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in the Bronx

In all the pages related to bus routes in NYC (except obviously for the Bronx page), every route has the terminal's locale (neighborhood) as a wiki-link. This is redundant, but needed to make a better Wikipedia experience for any user visiting those pages. I am conjecturing that these pages were edited that way so a user didn't have to peruse up to 140 terminal entries in a table to find a link that is possibly way up the page. I have undone your three edits that unlinked all the linked entries and I consider those edits destructive to the page and bordering on vandalism. I am unsure if you read my response on my talk page to your original "objection" to what I did, but either way, if you "undo" my locale wiki links again, that will be considered vandalism and I will seek an administrator to remedy this situation. I see that you've had dialogue with an admin before, and I highly doubt you want to deal with them again. Next time, before you undo a whole bunch of editing like you did, check similar pages for how they are edited/formatted and use the article's talk page to ask first! --SkipperRipper (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[More] I guess I can't undo (from History) all those changes you did so I have to edit all those entries again. --SkipperRipper (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent you haven't seen this section yet, although you have since posted on my talk page. Above, you can see I gave you a non-vague answer a few weeks ago. Also, it looks like no other editor on any of those pages had any issue with the locales being wikilinked previously. --SkipperRipper (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Administrative divisions of New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 84 (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) 11:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WPLJ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC Radio (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) 11:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the two "List of bus routes in..." articles

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of bus routes in Queens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Atlantic Avenue

WGCL-TV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Independent Network News

Westinghouse Broadcasting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WKDN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx bus route article (again)

You couldn't wait for a decision from the Admin board before you went and unlinked the whole article (again)...

What is your issue with the links?

Under WP:REPEATLINK it is stated: "Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." The linking here does not dilute the value of other links and for "added value" makes the table look cleaner. --SkipperRipper (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Other Side One! Just in relation to the above, Wikipedia has a fairly strict policy in regards to the use of non-free images, and this often incorporates logos. In this case, where you are showing a history of how the logos have changed, you can sometimes do this, but it woud need to be part of a broader discussion in the article where the logos are required to illustrate something in the text that couldn't be properly described without the image, and generally this isn't the case, especially where the logos are presented as part of a gallery. However, I have returned three of the logos, as they didn't meet the threshold of originality to have copyright protection, so we can use those without any problems.

Sorry for the problems on this. The difficulty comes from Wikipedia's aim to be free use for everyone, for any reason. What constitutes fair use for us might not constitute fair use for others, so we've taken a particularly restrictive approach to counter this, and that ends up being a lot more restrictive than what you would see in other publications who don;t have the same aims. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of express bus routes in New York City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grand Concourse and Victory Boulevard (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) 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for catching that IP who wants to add station slogans to TV station articles. Looks like he/she is back again. This has been going on for several years, with several different IPs/usernames etc. Ugh! Keep up the good work. I will try and keep an eye out for it too. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KOMO-TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KJR (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) 09:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]