User talk:Calibrador

A kitten for you!

[Random WikiLove] You hang in there. I love your photos and we need you here. Happy editing!

(t) Josve05a (c) 04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	I love all the updated photos. You do a great job. Thelonggoneblues (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo licensing problem

I uploaded two photos from San Diego from your Flickr SDCC folder. One for Steven Yeun and the other Sonequa Martin-Green. Needless to say, I was being experimental (very new to uploading and editing) so I'm just checking to make sure if you knew the licensing was fine as there appears to be an error with Yeun. Thelonggoneblues (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Family Goy - Family Guy promo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Family Goy - Family Guy promo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Family Gay - Family Guy promo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Family Gay - Family Guy promo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Extra Large Medium - Family Guy promo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Extra Large Medium - Family Guy promo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mike Huckabee presidential campaign logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mike Huckabee presidential campaign logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Match.com logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Match.com logo.svg. 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. Cloudbound (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you for contributing your photos of politicians. They really help illustrate some of our biographies. The Carly Fiorina photo is especially nice. Cheers! - MrX 15:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway

Hi Gage,

You have been nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! --SHust (WMF) (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prince logo.svg, 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. Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael McElhatton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Carney and Rodrigo García (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) 10:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ben Carson. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.

Warning is in regard to this reversion and this reversion.

While you may not be edit warring to the point of being blocked (your reversions are at least a day apart), the behavior you're engaging in meets the definition of edit warring.

The original photo you uploaded was too large and had a bit too much going on in it for an infobox profile photo, so I cropped it. The original photo was too dark, so I brightened it and removed extraneous "noise" from the subject's face and the background.

I understand that as the photographer who took and uploaded the original photo, you likely feel your "work" is being tampered with. That said, photos uploaded to Wikipedia are no different than content created or edited. As the edit page of every article in Wikipedia states:

"Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone...By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License..."

Please be careful in regard to the edit warring behavior as well as what now seems to be a feeling of ownership. Your contributions are appreciated, but the disruption you are causing by repeatedly reverting the photo isn't. In closing, I will remind you of these two outcomes that were a result of similar circumstances and events in your editing history: [1], [2]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool it

This comment in the edit summary was completely unnecessary. The editor who put the previous photo there did so in good faith, believing it was an improvement. All editors in good standing are welcome to add improvements to Wikipedia, even if they might not be seen by others as optimal contributions. Further, edit summaries are for giving a brief comment about what your edit was about, and are not meant to be an opportunity to make inappropriate comments. Please be mindful of this in the future. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arizona Corporation Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Burns (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) 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Details re Diane Douglas

Where did you get the biographical details for Diane Douglas, especially regarding her birthplace and education. Ping me with the details. Alansohn (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.

Please note, simply reverting someone with vague and/ or irrelevant edit descriptions without discussing in the talk page is very bad practice. Especially if the other user does use the talk page before changing/ reverting someone's edit. As I can see from some of the previous messages here, this does seem to be a bit of a problem for you. Please try to discuss more and revert less (unless needed, ie vandalism). Thanks 100.14.57.197 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP, American Politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --slakr^\ talk / 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --slakr^\ talk / 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Let's see if I get this straight: you report me for 3RR and request the page to be protected. Admin protects and asks we discuss. I say we can in talk page. Then, as soon as protection is lifted, you simply revert me without any discussion? This is very poor wikipedia practice 100.14.57.197 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack in the Box 2009 logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack in the Box 2009 logo.svg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Meyer Burnett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (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) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sri Srinivasan Image

Hi Calibrador! Thank you for all of the images you fix and upload. A small question about the Sri Srinivasan image. Shouldn't we provide the most recent image from his current job as judge, and not the one from his previous job at the Solicitor General? I'm just curious about the rationale. Thank you!----Obijuanelp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obijuanelp (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.png, 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. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for all of your impressive photographs. You are really most appreciated not just here, not just on English Wikipedia, but on all Wikipedia language sites that use images you've provided. Thank you very much ! — Cirt (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice job!/A proposition

Nice work on the newer GOT episode articles, particularly "The Door". I don't know if after the season ends, maybe you would like to team up with me to improve all GOT episode articles, possibly getting them all up to GA? Perhaps you've seen my name in article histories or perhaps not. Up to this point, I've mainly been working on my other favorite television series, Veronica Mars, but I'm looking for a new big content project. I'll be away for much of June, however. Does this sound appealing to you? Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 16:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sullivan County Public Library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bedford limestone (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) 09:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Portrait

Hi Calibrador, I noticed that you are Gage Skidmore, the author of Hillary's image that we're using on US presidential election article; I would like to tell you that I changed Clinton's portrait on that page, because another user had upload a version of your photo that, according to me, is wrong zoomed and it's not of the same dimensions of Jonhson and Trump's potraits. That's why I changed it, I said you this to prevent an edit warring. Have a good day! -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoenix Comicon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sam Jones and Dan Starkey (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) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Riverrun - Game of Thrones S6E08.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Riverrun - Game of Thrones S6E08.jpg, 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. Whpq (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jon Snow - Battle of the Bastards

Why did you undo the Battle of the Bastards edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPhantom101 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Question

I know you didn't nominate those articles for GA-status, someone was just trying to get them into that status by taking credit for it when they cleary didn't make any contribution. DepressedPer (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really have anything against it, I personally haven't nominated them because I find the GA process to be long winded, and would prefer it if someone else did it. But I don't necessarily have any desire for them to be GAs anyway. Calibrador (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Your recent editing history at Battle of the Bastards shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been advised to use the talk page to discuss the disagreement that we are currently having concerning the Lede. Twice. Instead of threatening me with 3RR (where you are closer to it than I have been), maybe a smarter use of your time is to actually go to the talk page and defend your preferred interpretation of Lede. Because clearly, I think you are completely misunderstanding it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is your very last warning: if you revert yet again, I will absolutely report you to 3RR, and do my level best to see you blocked for edit-warring. You have failed to engage in any discussion, stupidly thinking that edit-summaries are a suitable replacement for actual discussion. Do not test me on this, Calibrador. Use talk to cool things down, or you are going to find out firsthand how hot they can get. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Your veiled threats will not work. I have discussed my reversions on the article talk page, creating the appearance that I have not discussed the changes is simply your attempt to create a case for yourself. Calibrador (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Accusing me of edit warring when you refuse to discuss on another topic based on the same series. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You reverted three times yourself, is that not the definition of an edit war? Calibrador (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is when you refuse to use discussion. Only and idiot tend to think that edit summaries are suitable replacements for actual discussion and collaborative editing. I altered the Lede substantially and yet, you keep reverting back to your preferred version.

And clue it - they are not veiled threats, Calibrador; you are complaining about 3RR while doing the same fucking thing as well. You are not the smartest person in the room. You are not going to get your preferred version. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Either act collaboratively, or you will be removed from that collaboration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So, your ill-conceived 3RR report failed, for exactly the reasons that I illustrated. Now, we can proceed in one of three ways, as I see it. Firstly, one of us can avoid GoT articles (which I don't see happening). The second choice is to have us sniping at each other until you end up weeping in a corner over your hurt feelings or the both of us get blocked over petty bullshit. The third choice - and the one I would prefer - is for us to simply overlook perceived slights and get on with the business of editing collaboratively. Let me know which route you'd like to go and, as I am pretty sure you will make the right choice, we can meet up again in the article talk page in question and sort out a solution. The very smart move here is to not revert or make any substantial changes to the Lede until we arrive at a solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E10-The-Winds-of-Winter.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E10-The-Winds-of-Winter.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Battle of the Bastards

You and the other party have both been warned for edit warring on this article, per the result of a complaint. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If you revert again before getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron Throne (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) 09:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not...

...edit other's comments as you did here. Per WP:TPO, there are very few circustances in which editing other's comments is acceptable, and this is not one of them. TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not cool

This edit [3] was totally not cool since there is an active discussion on the infobox photos taking place at the Pence article talk page (which you are already aware of and were told the photo you put back in once again isn't appropriate for the infobox). Please take part in the discussion there rather than change out photos in a move that looks like edit warring. Also, the reason you gave for changing the photo out without discussion is invalid. Photos are not inherently POV and the one that was there didn't portray what you claim it did ("Looks very angry"). Additionally, MOS for infobox photos has typically been that photos showing the article subject straight toward the camera are always preferable over side shots. The photo you've added simply isn't infobox worthy. It could be put into the body of the article, though. At any rate, discussion is what's needed here, not edit warring that skirts the 24-hour discretionary sanctions rule in regard to American politics. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If outed...

You should probably contact an admin to have them hide away the edit, esp. if it outed your identity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Luke Cage SDCC images?

Hi Calibrador. TriiipleThreat has been uploading some of the images you took at this year's San Diego Comic-Con from Flickr, and I was just wondering if you happened to have taken any pictures during the Netflix/Luke Cage panel on Thursday? If you did, I would love to use some to add to Luke Cage (TV series) or to update the image for Mike Colter. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't. Calibrador (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for all the other pictures you did take! They are always amazing! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Got images

Notwithstanding the fact that changing images in high-traffic articles is usually discussed first, if you do update them it is your responsibility to update the source urls in the FUR templates as well. Can you can go back and do that? Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Little, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron (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) 09:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.azed.gov/about-ade/overview. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Gray (Arizona politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Melvin (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) 09:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. At two articles in less than 24 hours - both of which are under discretionary sanctions guidelines - you have unilaterally made changes to content where discussion is still taking place and consensus is being sought. This type of behavior is disruptive. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to have an understanding of how the process works. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Mike Pence.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Do you realize or care that your "addition" [4] was not only disruptive but a serious violation of BLP policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.
Please stop. Your actions of late have been not only disruptive, but at least one of your choices has bordered on vandalism and was a libelous BLP violation. You can't just close an active, consensus seeking discussion where you are involved because you don't like what's occurring there. Again, please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing occurring there that I don't like, the exact same discussion is taking place on two pages, and as was done for the Trump photo, I closed the discussion on the non-main page, and directed users to the main page discussion. Thanks for your concern. Calibrador (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi you clearly have a vendetta against Calibrador and just don't want any of his pictures on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with "consensus" anymore, so stop Hounding him. TL565 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have not been active in the "picture wars" at the Trump articles, and I don't really care what picture is used in the infobox. But it is clear to me that Calibrador should not be determining the outcome of the discussion, or taking it upon himself to put his picture into the article. Not only is he WP:INVOLVED as a passionate proponent of one side in the discussion, but he clearly also has a personal connection to one or more of the photos. For those reasons, Calibrador, you should NOT be presuming to judge the outcome of the discussions, and you ABSOLUTELY should not be putting any picture into the article. You should wait until a neutral third party evaluates the outcome, and you should let someone else put the picture in the article. If your picture is the one preferred by the community, it will eventually get there, without your direct action. Your eagerness to promote photos by this one photographer, at the Trump and many other articles, is getting disruptive, and IMO could lead to some kind of sanction if you keep it up. (Disclosure: I am an involved admin at the Trump pages, and I will not be taking any kind of admin action myself. I limit my admin actions at those pages to warnings, and this is a warning.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)