I agree that some bands are eclectic. But as far as just the writing style, it looks sloppy if it says a whole bunch of genres in the first sentence. A more detailed explanation of Sublime's style follows later in the article. Tim010987 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MakeBelieveMonster. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StarM 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, even if the image is used in an article, it will be deleted all the same. Our non-free content policy specifically disallows the use of non-free images to show what living people look like. Clearly anyone who cared to could take the subject's picture given that he is actively seeking election. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new section you put up on tea party movement and if you need help expanding the section into paragraphs, let me know. You can also email me. If you respond to this post, please do so here, as I am now watching your talk page. Thanks.Malke2010 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It would be great if you could help expand that, I probably won't have much time to work on it. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll look at it tonight.Malke2010 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Wikipedia isn't a free promotional platform, so an external link to the home page of a record company on a band isn't ok.[1] MySpace links are generally WP:LINKSTOAVOID, unless there's some unusual reason. Such a reason would be that the one official site that IS allowed by Wiki is for some reason not working. In fact, that seems to be the case here. (http://www.asobrock.com) If you have insight into that, it would be better to get the non-MySpace link working, since bots routinely delete MySpace links on sight. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have tons of insight into that. (??) I see how it's promotional to link to a record label page, but supplemental links to an official MySpace page seem really really common. A quick look finds MySpace links on Taylor Swift, Audioslave, Nelly... doesn't seem to be a well-accepted policy. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go there. The vast majority of the FA and GA articles not only don't have MySpace, many only have the single link to the official site. I explain the reasoning in detail, here.[2] But more than that, these days the MySpace links are so far off the best Wiki standard, they look amateur. (If I had a group, I'd make sure the MySpace stayed off my group's pages.) Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had missed the merge discussion for Rotary, and I think there's a big issue now. Can you please respond to my comments on talk:Rotary (intersection) ASAP. Thanks! CSZero (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 13:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MakeBelieveMonster,

I saw you delete this: [3]. I've deleted it too. It's vandalism and keeps showing up on TPM and Tea Party Protests. You have to read it all the way through to realize it's vandalism. It fools everybody.Malke2010 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was really surprised that Gwen Gale protected it but I've only seen a page protected like that once and that was Tea Party Protests. I think that got protected just recently. I don't really edit there, but I've reverted vandalism there with Twinkle.Malke2010 03:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and for whatever reason Tea Party Protests gets more vandalism than Tea Party Movement. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that too.Malke2010 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Antifogmatic Cover.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Fixed it. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MakeBelieveMonster. Great work on Nice Ride Minnesota. Would you care to please nominate it for Did you know? (I will if you don't.). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Susan! I'll nominate the page. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gday, in relation to the "unsourced claims" you removed in relation to the autonomous car, I'm not sure if you don't believe me or you're just trying to make it neater. The claims I made were common knowledge to engineers involved in the field. The ability to get out of your car before it's parked has already been implemented by BMW and the discussion about navigation information being transmitted to the car electronically is extensively discussed in the rest of the article. I don't believe that citations are necessary in discussing drunk drivers or redundant passengers, as the definition of the vehicle involved the fact that humans are not required. Owen214 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't disagree with the claims, I just wanted to see them sourced. In articles on future technologies, there is often a tendency for authors to exaggerate the secondary and tertiary impacts. Thanks for adding the citations! MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given you prod tagging of The Atlas of Global Inequalities I thought I'd check that you were aware of the G12 speedy delete criteria that allows obvious copyvios to be speedy deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MakeBelieveMonster, regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitchhiking&diff=589171715&oldid=589164015

I agree that the hospitalityclub.org source is probably not the best and can be removed. However, I don't see how the German study supports the claim that „traffic accidents are the leading cause of death among hitchhikers“. I took a look again at the study and though I only read excerpts, it seems that there is no quantitative comparison between traffic accidents and criminal causes of death. In fact, the study mostly concerns only the dangers of criminal acts.

Best regards, --Tobias (Talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the source; that's quite helpful since I can't read German. So if the study doesn't support the claim it is attached to, then I'll go ahead and remove the claim.

Cheers! MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the fast response, MakeBelieveMonster! :) --Tobias (Talk) 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebekah Scheinfeld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cheers AKS 06:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Illiana Expressway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• On September 6 one Chicago newspaper columnist called the Illiana "Quinn's road to nowhere]."<ref>http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130906/BLOGS10/130909887</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MakeBelieveMonster. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Edwin Reyes, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Kimani Gray until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Urban studies & Planning

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Urban studies & Planning for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 12:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]