→Notification of WP:AN/EW report: new section |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →WP:ARBPIA warning: new section |
||
Line 386: | Line 386: | ||
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the [[WP:AN/EW#User:Kazvorpal_reported_by_User:Malik_Shabazz_.28Result:_.29|noticeboard]]. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. |
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the [[WP:AN/EW#User:Kazvorpal_reported_by_User:Malik_Shabazz_.28Result:_.29|noticeboard]]. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. |
||
~ [[User:NekoBot|NekoBot]] <small>([[User_Talk:NekoBot|MeowTalk]])</small> 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) <small>(False positive? [[User:NekoBot#False_Positive|Report it!]])</small> <!-- Template: User:NekoBot/3RRAttn --> |
~ [[User:NekoBot|NekoBot]] <small>([[User_Talk:NekoBot|MeowTalk]])</small> 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) <small>(False positive? [[User:NekoBot#False_Positive|Report it!]])</small> <!-- Template: User:NekoBot/3RRAttn --> |
||
== [[WP:ARBPIA]] warning == |
|||
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%; background: ivory;" |
|||
| [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] |
|||
| |
|||
| The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], any expected [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standards of behavior]], or any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision]] section of the decision page. |
|||
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]], with the appropriate sections of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures]], and with the case decision page.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> |
|||
|} |
|||
This warning is given due to your [[WP:1RR]] violation on the [[Palestine]] article, as explained at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=437793270 WP:AN3#User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Warned under ARBPIA)]. Please be aware that what might be seen as normal give-and-take on other articles may be viewed with alarm on Israeli/Palestine articles. Editors who don't often participate in that area may be surprised. Nonetheless you should avoid trying to add Edwin Black's thesis to the article again until consensus is found on talk. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:13, 5 July 2011
- Previous talk has been archived at User_talk:Kazvorpal/2006-03-14 -- all history, including the part I pasted in here for continuity, is also included there.
DYK
--Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually quite proud...--Kaz 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your improvement to this article. My only question is about the length of the grub - you state it as "perhaps as much as one foot long" which is twice the length of the adult. Do you have any reference for this? Is it usual for a grub to be larger than the adult? Richard W.M. Jones 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, beetle grubs are frequently longer than the adult forms, "june beetle" larvae can be twice as long, for example. They both lose mass while they pupate, and become shorter and thicker as adults. In this case, I was taking the text from a Titan Beetle article, let's see if I can find it...[1] here's one reference to the larvae. --Kaz 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for the edits you made? Neat stuff! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's in an Associated Press article, here's a link to a mirror of it: [2] --Kaz 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hah! That's funny...probably shouldn't keep it though. -- Scientizzle 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd just gotten the letters backward, it's not ARS Syndrome, it's RAS Syndrome --Kaz 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think that actually makes it slightly funnier. Thanks for clearing that up...Acronym Redundancy Syndrome had neologism written all over it, but RAS syndrome, a subject I'd not seen before, looks mighty entertaining. -- Scientizzle 23:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like my version more, that's probably why my subconscious came up with it...--Kaz 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Turtles
Hi, I just noticed your good edit to the turtle evolution section, and am hoping you have some good resources for this. Do you know if the extinct families listed in the turtle article are complete and correct? I want List of Testudines to be the next WP:AAR featured list, and don't have the resources to check them out. Also, what information would you suggest adding to the table (it will be seperate from the current table). All I can think of at the moment is "fossil range". Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
paleo-template
Would it be acceptable to use your paleo-template for creatures of Skull Island? They are fictional, but they deserve some sort of template. Example pages: Vastatosaurus rex, Venatosaurus saevidicus. Bibliomaniac15 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I don't think it'd hurt anything. Once we finish up the paleo template a bit more, perhaps we can make a second version for fictional animals, in case there's some confusion when people use the "what uses this template" link. But for now, go ahead and use it. --Kaz 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
star trek template project
could you please remove the "star trek template project" link from the template, and the pages that it has been substituted into, as it isn't an appropriate place for such a notice? it should go on the talk pages for those articles, if you want to advertise it. --Gnewf 06:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Categorisation
As an article grows, others sometimes remove stub notices, thereby removing the associated stub categories. This leaves the article without a category. There's no harm in an article residing in both Category:Gardening and Category:Horticulture stubs for example. Some people might not think to check for your article in both. I added Gardening as the category, doing away with the need for the ugly template afterall. -- Longhair 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Measures
FYI, metric measures are used by 192 out of 193 countries, 95% of the world's population, and over 80% of the world's English-speaking population. You shouldn't be requiring the rest of the world to follow your US-POV minority imperial usage - MPF 10:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, and 192 out of 193 countries (though, oddly enough, there are over 200 countries out there, so this is strange math) are socialist, and yet that economic system is self-destructive and nonsensical. What the hordes of authority-worshipping proles tolerate is irrelevent to what's right. A binary system of measurement, with key measures arbitrarily established where it's most convenient for the common user makes more sense than a base 10 system of measures which are easy for bureaucrats to convert, but nearly useless for everyday people.
- But that's all irrelevent, because there are more native English language-speaking people in the United States than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED. This means that, if you want to play a numbers dick-swinging game, the English-speaking Wikipedia should use the system which is used by the majority of natively English-speaking readers...which is the English system, not the lame Metric system.
- Note that the reason most countries use the metric system is that it has been FORCED upon them by their sociopathic bureaucrats, in those socialist governments I mentioned earlier. The one country where people are FREE TO CHOOSE their system have stuck to the English. And what people choose who are free to do so reflects most accurately what is best for them, not what other people are FORCED by bureaucrats to use. --Kaz 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
On the main page now. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just thought you might like to know that List of basil cultivars is nearing the end of what looks like a successful candidacy to be a featured list! It's evolved a bit since you first wrote it, but I'm sure you'll recognize your work if you haven't dropped by in a while. Waitak 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Your Opinion
I've noticed your edits on some pages we've both taken an interest in and I was looking for your opinion. I can't seem to convince Jayjg to let me contribute to the Israeli Settlements page and I thought you might want to take a look at the dispute. MarkB2 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We should all strive to be the former, not the latter
The latter should be forbidden, really... — Omegatron 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
hoplophobia
I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Abacus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Abacus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:LaurieBerkner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LaurieBerkner.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Heirlooms.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heirlooms.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please upload a version to Commons without any labels? That way the photo can be used in other language projects. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-13t08:28z
Speedy deletion of Image:DanCrow.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:DanCrow.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g12.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Permission for Image:DanCrow.jpg
You will need to email OTRS stating that you have permission to use that image, permissions@wikimedia.org, otherwise the image may be deleted. Thanks. CO2 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Permission for Image:Infini-T.jpg
on the page for Image:Infini-T.jpg you claim that you are the creator of said image and are releasing it under the "GNU Free Documentation License". Are you the creator of the original illustration used in the magazine, or just the scanned image that was uploaded? If it is the former, some confirmation should be included. If it is that latter than the copyright on the scan still belongs to the magazine and/or artist, and you can't release it. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Money bomb
Money bomb
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Money bomb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. While the article seems to have been created in good faith, the links make it clear that it is a neologism not in use outside Ron Paul's supporters, although the wording of the article makes it appear otherwise. Orange Mike 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are you always this impolite when someone is courteous enough to point out a problem with an article? --Orange Mike 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are you always advocating censorship? You ask if I'm impolite when someone "points out a problem with an article", yet as I said in my "impoliteness", it's the trick of trying to censor information wholesale, because of some alleged technical problem or factual error in a specific subset of it, that is poor editorship, implying a POV bias. You could have simply changed the article to correct the small objection you had, and yet you nominated it for deletion, instead, actually a more involved process, implying you prefer the wholesale censorship over simply fixing the problem. --Kaz 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- (Guess you can call me JohnUffish.) Kazvorpal, there are further similar attempts to Moneybomb by User:Elonka after I have built on your fine foundation. Note that User:Orangemike, who had initially weakly supported Elonka, has in my experience always come to a reasonable solution after both sides have expressed concerns. Since you are a primary editor, I thought you might want to consider commenting at WP:COIN#Moneybomb (you might also see Talk:Moneybomb#Third opinion). Thanks for your improvements to Wikipedia. John J. Bulten 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are you always advocating censorship? You ask if I'm impolite when someone "points out a problem with an article", yet as I said in my "impoliteness", it's the trick of trying to censor information wholesale, because of some alleged technical problem or factual error in a specific subset of it, that is poor editorship, implying a POV bias. You could have simply changed the article to correct the small objection you had, and yet you nominated it for deletion, instead, actually a more involved process, implying you prefer the wholesale censorship over simply fixing the problem. --Kaz 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article 15 bean soup, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit, as it doesn't make sense to indicate Giuliani has withdrawn, since he withdrew after the primary was over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andareed (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Beelzebufo DYK
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I left some good comments about this article and it's hook while it was in the "DYK Waiting Room". I love that you made a mock-up showing size comparsion. Fun article. Ribbit. -- House of Scandal (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
your comments
Please do not make comments such as "deleting things instead of fixing them is bad editing". Your edits were unsourced, unsubstantiated, and non-neutral POV, and they needed to be reverted. As for whether deleting things is bad editing, deleting is the most important kind of editing. I should know, I'm an editor in real life as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will make such comments, because they are true. We are not editing a print magazine here, although if you wipe out "unsources" information in a print publication instead of having researchers verify it, you are incompetent. When valid, useful information is imperfect in wikipedia, the solution is to fix it, not delete it. To do otherwise IS bad editing. It is either lazy, PoV, or in some other way negative. Too many editors impose their PoV by lawyering away information they don't like. The policital stances of all nine justices are UNIVERSALLY acknowledged. There is no serious debate over whether Ginsberg is Liberal, or Thomas is Conservative. To pretend otherwise is absolutely laughable, and leads me to suspect that it's PoV that is the motivation for your censorship, not simply laziness. Either way, it is bad editing. --Kaz (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, your motivation is also called into question by your contradictory excuses for deleting, rather than fixing, the information you are trying to censor. You claim, in the edit, that "the political leanings are already mentioned"...and yet, now, you are claiming they are unsubstantiated and non-pov. These are mutually exclusive arguments. What's more, the ENTIRE GRID is mentioned elsewhere...the grid is a summary of the information, to make it quickly and readily accessible. Do you have some reason to think that the universally accepted political leanings of the nine justices should not be readily accessible? --Kaz (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You do realize that you were disagreeing with two different people? The person who said the political leanings were already mentioned is me. The person you were talking to above is SWATJester. Just because Swatjester and I both believed it was better not to have the column does not mean we agree on why or we somehow coordinated the edits. Magidin (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, your motivation is also called into question by your contradictory excuses for deleting, rather than fixing, the information you are trying to censor. You claim, in the edit, that "the political leanings are already mentioned"...and yet, now, you are claiming they are unsubstantiated and non-pov. These are mutually exclusive arguments. What's more, the ENTIRE GRID is mentioned elsewhere...the grid is a summary of the information, to make it quickly and readily accessible. Do you have some reason to think that the universally accepted political leanings of the nine justices should not be readily accessible? --Kaz (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Civility, reliable sourcing, and NPOV are rules on this project. They are not negotiable. Edit warring is likewise unacceptable. Please stop doing so, or you will be blocked from editing.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Define edit warring in a way where my attempts to fix the ostensible objections is warring, yet your wholesale deletion and failure to seek compromise is not. --Kaz (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your addition of the unorthodox "formatting rule" hatnote to this article. It's unnecessary (thousands of articles that have names that would begin with a capitalized letter only at the start of a sentence follow this "formatting rule", e.g. the many science and math topics named for John von Neumann). It's irrelevant that the way the hatnote was worded, no meaning could be construed from it—the hatnote is superfluous and the "rule" regarding the capitalization of the "D" is perfectly implied by the name's usage in the article. Robert K S (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Makes sense. --Kaz (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um. Wow. Really? Thanks. One gets so used to battling people over silly things, it's really refreshing when someone agrees with you right off the bat. I think I'm going to have to lie down now. :-) Robert K S (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently raised some questions concerning the definition of the term "ur-organism" at Talk:Ur-organism as part of a merge proposal (see also link1 and link2). I was wondering if you could provide some much-needed help in this area. Thanks so much, -Thibbs (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Noticed a picture of what I assume is you at Wayne Bell. If so, would you like to help me improve the article (and probably WWIV article)? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirects
Hey there. Looking up David Letterman, and of course typing in david letterman, I noticed one of my pet peeves: an unnecessary redirect at David letterman. The thing is that MediaWiki automatically redirects between titles with homogenous initial capitalisation and thus those redirects are not needed. Since you established that redirect in 2005, I did a quick check to see whether or not you are still an active Wikipedian, and immediately stumbled upon another such redirect you recently created at Chaste tree (to be sure: the redirect at Chaste Tree to Vitex agnus-castus is valid and indeed necessary). I guess that many are not aware of how the MW search engine works and so there are probably a million such unnecessary redirects, and it's certainly no biggie but I decided to drop you a few lines to let you know. user:Everyme 08:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
August 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Furthermore, whether the information is attributed or not, I really don't think we want to put Wikipedia in the position of suggesting that one can eat poison ivy. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm afraid I had to remove this statement since it wasn't supported by the source, an article on extending the limits of light microscopy that did not discuss the size limit of life at all. As a comment on the idea, it might be true but I'd be doubtful since electron microscopes have been around for a long time and these can easily resolve such small structures. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did you not read the actual text, Tim? The electron microscope is useless for confirming the activity of life, because the conditions required to use one kill whatever you're examining. Electron microscopes can't be used to observe things real-time, but only to take still pictures of dead stuff. You can't watch a bacterium or nanobe grow and live, you can only coat one in gold and examine its corpse. --Kaz (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The text in File:Open.primaries.gif is inaccurate. South Carolina does not register voters by party, so there is no such thing as a registered Republican. Carolina wren (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Changing-man.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Changing-man.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. — neuro(talk) 22:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Changing-man.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Changing-man.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — neuro(talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems a portion of the picture is copyrighted. Hekerui (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have permission of the Paul campaign, with whom I am in direct communication, and I showed it to them before I posted it. Kaz (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:America-shrug-rand.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:America-shrug-rand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --(ESkog)(Talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Do not re-create deleted images. If you have reason why this image does not conflict with Wikipedia policy, visit Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Ananym
I have nominated Ananym, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananym. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Bill Kristol, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. RayTalk 07:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Evony
You accused me of censoring the page. Your sources for your edit are:
- which is a link to editing the wikipedia page for Evony.
- http://www.mechscapeworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11014 and http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3301096/Evony-Copying-RuneScape.html which are forum posts.
- http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en___US360&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=evony+%22not+really+free%22 which is a Google search.
- http://www.gossipgamers.com/evony-hands-on-review-formerly-civony/ which appears to be a gaming site. This one appears to be closest to an RS, but I've never seen it before, so I'm a little wary.
- http://www.nerdnology.com/post/2009/10/12/Why-Im-leaving-Evony.aspx which is a blog.
- http://bbs.evony.com/showpost.php?p=766049&postcount=8 which is a forum post.
None of those are reliable sources AFAIK, and so cannot be used to support the information you insist on including in the article. See WP:RS.
You stated in your edit summary Real editors FIX things, instead of just censoring them whole cloth.
Presumably you are a 'real' editor and I am not. I don't particularly care about what ideas you have about what 'real' editors do, but I suggest a real editor would find reliable sources, instead of using a handful of unreliable sources to support a hatchet job. Also, you're supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. See WP:NPA.
You also said That's probably why you are on probation for engaging in petty edit wars.
Well, again, comment on content, not the contributor, and quite frankly I have no idea what this means, Wikipedia has no probation system AFAIK. Geoff B (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you were a real editor, you'd know that the source rules are not absolutes that must be adhered to on every page, but are generally only brought up for highly questionable claims, or unusually volatile topics, or when someone is wanting to lawyer the page to censor data.
Since these claims are fairly mainstream and the topic is simply some little web game, that leaves either you wanting to hide information, or you being such a lame amature that you don't actually understand how to apply the rules.
- If someone's source for a reasonably common cookie description links to a blog recipe, you don't delete the entry, because it's no big deal.
- If it's an especially noteworthy cookie, you might put a tag suggesting a better source.
- If someone is posting a claim that Obama used to get bad grades in high school, then you might put up a cite demand and watch to ensure that it's fixed or removed in a timely fashion. It's an important page, but not a terribly important claim.
- If someone claims that George Bush was once in the Klan, you would certainly remove it until a valid source is cited. It's an important page, AND a very significant claim.
- Then again, if you don't like the fact that your favorite politician was once charged with corruption, you might bring up every single technical objection to any mention of it in the article, always DELETING the text instead of fixing or tagging it...that's called lawyering, and it's the real reason half the rules exist. To censor.
As far as I can tell, YOU are simply some lamer who is confusing that hierarchy of criteria with real editing. Either that, or you're shilling for Evony.
- You are being a perfect example of really BAD editing...you are claiming a PARTIAL objection to a large block of text, and then removing the thing whole cloth. No [citation needed] tags, no removing ONLY the parts with tertiary sources, no actually taking ten seconds to FIX your objection yourself...just removing ALL of it. The Guardian isn't a valid source? Links directly to the information presented, as with the bullet list isn't a valid source? Nonsense. It's as if you deleted "the website's primary color is green" with a link to the website (which turns out to be green), claiming lack of a secondary source.
- If you have a problem with an article, FIX it, or TAG it, unless it's a very important claim AND article. Don't turn into some anal-retentive git who lawyers even minor fluffy-bunny pages. And, if ever at all, ONLY remove EXACTLY what is supposedly violating a guideline, not the ENTIRE section that happens to contain it.
- Oh, and you got an 3R Edit War tag stuck on your user page. THAT is the probation I'm talking about. You run around reverting stuff blindly, some lame, overenthusiastic wannabe, and end up in danger of having your edit privileges suspended. Again, you desperately need to learn how to be a REAL editor. --Kaz (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- The links to your 'sources' are there. None of them are reliable, so the info cannot be included. I knew you'd bring up the possibility of shilling for Evony (so much for WP:AGF eh) but unfortunately my removal of pro-Evony comments shits all over your insult. Find some reliable sources and then it can go in. Ad hominem won't save you. You also need to read WP:NPA I think. Judging by your actions, 'real' editors rely on unreliable sources and repeated personal attacks. I don't think I want to be a 'real' editor in that case.
- As for that 3RR tag on my user page I put it there. LOL! Geoff B (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Matthew Hoh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not seem to have lasting encyclopedic value. Is he notable?
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bevinbell 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Matthew Hoh
I have nominated Matthew Hoh, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Hoh. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bevinbell 02:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.
I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.
Thank you.
Vyeh (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Kazvorpal! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Dave Hood - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.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) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Melamine.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Melamine.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I also tagged File:Brothers-grunt.jpg because it is a derivative work. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Microhyla nepenthicola
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Smartse (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have tagged this and removed it from the article because it is obviously copyrighted, for example in this source it states "(Credit: © Prof. Indraneil Das/Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation)". Please be more careful in the future to not upload images under copyright. Smartse (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theory and Pareidolia
Please provide us with a reliable source when adding new content to the Conspiracy theory article (or any Wikipedia article) otherwise it will be treated as original research and deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. I took a long, hard look through Google and I could not find any books or scholarly sources which connect conspiracy theory directly with pareidolia, explaining the connection. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of SDP Multimedia for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article SDP Multimedia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDP Multimedia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Theodicy and optimism
In Catalan or Spanish when we use the word "optimismo" we, 99% of times, are using it in the mood related sense. According to the correction you have just made in Leibniz article, I could thing that in English it is just the reverse. Nevertheless, maybe I should not take "classic" in the sense of usual or common? --Auró (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, in English, something is "classic" when it's used in the older sense. The term was first used to mean "most efficient" first. --Kaz (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the information.--Auró (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
List of Tea Party politicians
Thanks for creating that article. It's been on my to-do list for months. I've got a bunch of thoughts about it but I don't want to go too far before you've commented. Will Beback talk 08:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
- This permission does not give you any special status or authority
- Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
- You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
- If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
- If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Curator Barnstar
The Curator Barnstar | ||
It's good to see someone with a solid grounding in economic history contributing to our economics pages. Thanks! --LK (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC) |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Palestine, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction. For more information, see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. You have made two reverts. I recommend that you undo your second revert. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:ANEW#User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Kazvorpal,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
WP:ARBPIA warning
This warning is given due to your WP:1RR violation on the Palestine article, as explained at WP:AN3#User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Warned under ARBPIA). Please be aware that what might be seen as normal give-and-take on other articles may be viewed with alarm on Israeli/Palestine articles. Editors who don't often participate in that area may be surprised. Nonetheless you should avoid trying to add Edwin Black's thesis to the article again until consensus is found on talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)