Gomez3000adams

I caution you to discuss large changes to the article on the Talk page first. That is the normal proceedure for high-profile articles such as this. Failure to work in a collaborative fashion to get consensus for your edits could lead to a loss of your editting privileges. Johntex\^talk 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't revert the tagging of this replaceable fair use image again. I've put an explanation, copied from my user talk page, on Image talk:Seligmann Finnerty.jpg. --Tony Sidaway 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid your arguments don't make much sense to me. You seem to have no real reason other than excessive editorial zeal. No can do. Gomez3000adams 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Seligmann Finnerty.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Aksibot 09:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This has been added and reverted enough times for you to see it in history and know better. Padillah (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

I think I went a bit overboard classifying this as vandalism at first sight. I should have notified you of the page history (edits like this, and this, and this are getting to be all too common) and warned you that if edits like this continue they could be seen as vandalism. My apologies for overreacting. As awesome as I agree Mozart is, I think we should both try a little harder to keep a cool head about it, huh? Thanks, Padillah (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing uncool about stating what is a fact - that mozart is today generally accepted to be one of the greatest composers of all time. I toned down the language very much and I don't see anything wrong with my edit. Besides I may not have been on Wikipedia as long as you have but condescending tripe like this over a simple edit is definitely not cool headed.huh?Gomez3000adams (talk)

Hi Gomez,

While we certainly agree on the greatness of Mozart, would you please stop restoring the version with that particular phrasing in the lead? If you feel that "great" is essential in the first paragraph, please make your case on the talk page (and beware WP:3RR). Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User_talk:Ankimai. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Fbifriday (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. That user made a unilateral edit to a disputed article without following WP:3. I wasn't even sure if it was a sock puppet. This user also used the same template on my page, does he get the same warning? Gomez3000adams (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, which is a removal of your edit, please see this comment which was written by an arbitrator. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you have any questions, please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Teamgeist II adidas.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply