Talk:Gayle Slossberg

message: :Image:CTSenSlossberg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CTSenSlossberg.jpg

message: Old, but factual. There should be brief mention of this:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/25/connecticut-state-senator-alarmed-over-non-existent-rape-scene-gta-iv  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.4.205 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTA controversy 

message: This is an event covered by reliable third party news sources. Please post here if you want to discuss it, as an anonymous user and someone claiming to be this person's brother seem to want to. Markvs88 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about Wikipedia:Verifiability. You cannot just remove a cited point without discussion. Complaining about how Wikipedia works is also just wasting your breath. Feel free to explain WHY you think the point about the dumped signs (which was reported in various newspapers) is an addition for someone's political gain. As for Gayle being your sister, I don't care. No one cares. This is an online encyclopeida, not your high school yearbook. So I'd suggest if the event did not actually occur that you get a retraction from the Connecticut Post, WTNH, etc. Markvs88 (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Articles should contain verifiable information. Given that most of your edits have not been backed up by reliable sources (other than your own assertions of first-hand knowledge, which can't of themselves be verified), their reversion has been correct per policy. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with C.Fred. And you were reverting the sign dumping earlier. Anecdotes are not verifiable in any event. Markvs88 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It isn't what we want, it's how this place works and you would have done much better to learn that before trying to make changes. This is not Facebook. As for that, a) Yes, it is and you don't know what you're talking about. The first step for a fact to be added is for it to be cited. THEN only if there is conflict does consensus come into play. B) No, it isn't. For example, I've been here for going on 5 years and have zip at stake for this article except for someone (that's you) trying to edit it against the rules. I don't care in the slightest what Gayle Slossberg (or anybody else) wants, it's what is verifiable that will be added. You're far from the first person to behave this way, feel free to check out the history/talk pages of Holy Land USA or Stamford, Connecticut. Markvs88 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign dumping

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gayle Slossberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927041014/http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2502731 to http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2502731
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified