Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of basketball arenas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bar. 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) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I modified your edit to Damian Lillard. The community is being more stringent on sourcing for "greatest in history" claims, especially in the lead. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association § Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles. An WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requires backing by "multiple mainstream sources", not Basketball Network. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. (although in my defense I did not say he is "one of the greatest" but rather that he is "one of the most prolific", which is more objective and pretty true, given he is 4th on the all-time list). But I get the point about not using "in history". That's fine. One thing that did get lost was the note about his shooting range (the basketballnews.com citation), something that I think most people would agree is also noteworthy about him (his penchant for taking very deep 3s). But it doesn't need to go in the lead. Maybe it can be added elsewhere. Thanks again. NameNotUsed20 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find sources for what was written, I was mostly tweaking it since it wasnt currently supported (and it's highly visible in the lead). Thanks for understanding, and happy editing. —Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NameNotUsed20! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Apocalypse Now and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. My main issue was that the description on the Redux page was so brief. Thanks NameNotUsed20 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was too harsh. We all come here to edit in good faith, and I need to stop barking at people. Cheers. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Appreciate the post NameNotUsed20 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Northern Nevada Correctional Center. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. The4lines |||| (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NameNotUsed20! Your additions to George M. Totten have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and reminder. While I had cited that source, I can see that I did not paraphrase quite enough. I have updated that page. If you want to check it that is great, and/or let me know if any other issues. Thanks. NameNotUsed20 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's much better. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NameNotUsed20! Respectfully, I do not understand why a private civil litigation case (litigation for money) is so prominently featured in Devin Wenig's bio (the 2nd paragraph) per your recent edits. He has been a CEO of 3 companies over the last 30 years and by all accounts has lived a reputable life. He expressed his regret about what happened in secret during his tenure, in that 60 minutes segment you cite. If you have interest in the truth, please review the actual litigation files for your background, as you are magnifying stories with selective facts planted by plaintiffs/attorneys seeking money and trying to skew a jury. Additionally there is a separate ebay cyberstalking page where you can cite whatever you like. Wikipedia seems to be fighting for its life, so lets try to not jump on bandwagons with flat tires. Thank you. Truthchild (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, however I do strongly disagree with your assertion that my edits represented "bias". For the record, I didn't actually say anything about the civil case in the lead, just stated that the scandal happened under his watch. I do think it's noteworthy that he is being sued civilly and also noteworthy when people make a movie about a scandal someone is involved with and broadly approved ("take her down"), whether or not he personally approved the shocking methods. For the record, (as you have suggested in your edit), I have no personal connection to the Steiners in any way, nor to Wenig himself, nor to eBay or anything else in this article. I assume the same is true with you, and that you have edited lots of different kinds of Wikipedia pages (?). Feel free to check my edit history and you'll see it is on a wide range of topics, mostly sports, movies, and history. My rationale for the edits was that it was a very noteworthy case, internationally known even (I heard about this on a TV report in Australia, while on vacation there), and thus was surprised even that it was not in the lead. But I'm also ok with taking it out. I do think it should be stated in the Cyberstalking paragraph that the employees were convicted (not just charged), and that he is being sued. If he loses the civil case then the page can be revisited. Thank you. NameNotUsed20 (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]