Previous talk has been archived at User_talk:Kazvorpal/2006-03-14 -- all history, including the part I pasted in here for continuity, is also included there.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Castorocauda lutrasimilis, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm actually quite proud...--Kaz 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Do you have a citation for the edits you made? Neat stuff! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in an Associated Press article, here's a link to a mirror of it: [2] --Kaz 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hah! That's funny...probably shouldn't keep it though. -- Scientizzle 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I'd just gotten the letters backward, it's not ARS Syndrome, it's RAS Syndrome --Kaz 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I like my version more, that's probably why my subconscious came up with it...--Kaz 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

On 1 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BepiColumbo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On the main page now. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The latter should be forbidden, really... — Omegatron 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)Reply[reply]

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

(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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beelzebufo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Makes sense. --Kaz (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

My goal is to present the best, most complete information, not to defend some specific stance...more editors need to be that way. --Kaz (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

You accused me of censoring the page. Your sources for your edit are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evony&action=edit#cite_note-guardian150709-5 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)Reply[reply]

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.

These are wiki editing basics that you need to learn ASAP. --Kaz (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

On 3 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microhyla nepenthicola, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the information.--Auró (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

		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)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kazvorpal. You have new messages at Lawrencekhoo's talk page.
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)Reply[reply]

See WP:ANEW#User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kazvorpal. I noticed that you recently added a subsection about Night on Bald Mountain to the Modest Mussorgsky article. I would recommend that you reorganize that info into paragraph form, rather than list form. Lists seem to encourage editors to keep adding and adding to it, turning the section into a trivia section which are discourged by wikipedia. Paragraph form would simply outline your point that the Night on Bald Mountain is used widely throughout the media and in pop culture, avoiding the confusion and race to add any and all mentions of the piece in the media and every commercial someone might see on TV. Regards, and keep up the good work. (: --BoguSlav 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kazvorpal! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 300 Workout. Since you had some involvement with the 300 Workout redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You commented in February at Talk:Choreia (disease) that the article name was incorrect. I agree and, after some debate, a move discussion is in progress. Please add your voice if you support it. Best wishes Dubbin^u | t 17:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sympathize completely, believe me. I find myself lost whenever HotCat goes down (thankfully not often). Happy to be of help! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pls see issues about this DYK nomination.PumpkinSky talk 13:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Moultrie Flag at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

A tag has been placed on James P. Powell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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. Under 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 that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SQGibbon (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Freedom-watch-protest.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Paleontology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Earlygirl.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Audu Paden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable producer. Passing mentions only in news sources, only substantial coverage is on non-RS social networks. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.

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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tea Party politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party politicians 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 template from the top of the article. – hysteria18 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yellow.woolly.bear.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi there .. was "Paranormal paranoia" a typo? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apophenia&diff=next&oldid=423717837 I don't see what the section has to do with paranoia, and was just going to change it to "phenomena", but then thought i'd ask .. cheers, Doceddi (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kaz-yahoo-news.png, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tea Party politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party politicians (2nd nomination) 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 template from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Tabasco.75x.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Dorian Electra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent, reliable references outside of one Gawker article. Plenty of blogs and YouTube videos to be found.

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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Richard-timberlake.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I edit a lot of TV show articles and in just about every case where a show is cancelled any number of groups form (Facebook, various petition sites, fansites, etc.) to protest the cancellation and try to get their beloved show back on the air. Some of these efforts get thousands of supporters. We do not report all of these on Wikipedia unless there is something significant about that action. In order to establish significance we need secondary, objective, reliable sources to report on the effort or else it just does not belong. See the Jericho article for an example of a significant fan response reported on by reliable sources. Unless you come up with similar sources this section just does not belong in the article at all. It basically comes across as original research -- you think it's important enough to be in the article but, as you know, that's not good enough for Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started up a discussion on the talk page, hope to see you there. SQGibbon (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plugrá is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plugrá 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 template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slick Willy. Since you had some involvement with the Slick Willy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Nice edits. I recognize you as a respected user. 1234567890Number (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Denationalization of Money is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Denationalization of Money 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 template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kazvorpal. Thanks for your contribution to Coral. However, you have added an entire section to a GA-level article without providing a single citation. Can you please provide some reliable sources so the article can retain its GA status. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I commend you for leaving me a message. There are too many bad editors out there who, if they aren't going to take the time to add the sources, will just delete the information for being unsourced, even when it's obviously true. — Kaz (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, would you mind if I nominated Catalaphyllia for DYK (or were you planning to do it)? Thanks, Matty.007 17:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd love it if you nominated the page, and that's probably better than doing it for myself. — Kaz (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it is at Template:Did you know nominations/Catalaphyllia. I had to remove a section I couldn't find a source for, but feel free to restore it if there is a source I missed for it. Thanks, Matty.007 11:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catalaphyllia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Catalaphyllia jardinei, known commonly as elegance coral, can reproduce either sexually or asexually? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catalaphyllia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nut (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) 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much – we need someone to show that people are willing to bring others' GAs to FAs! (May not be a problem elsewhere, but it's a really serious one in WP:ELEM...) If you want, I can try poking my head into it... Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your upload of File:Alton-map.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Brandywine.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Citron.melon.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Common-nuts.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Most royal candidate theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most royal candidate theory (2nd nomination) 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. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Marcus Mastin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inadequately referenced article for author whose works don't appear to be significant. He appears to be non-notable and the article appears promotional.

While all constructive 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Respiration organ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Should be redirected to the far better article at respiratory system

While all constructive 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tdslk (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You set up Prelude to Axanar as a redirect to the article Star Trek: Axanar now at AFD. As the latter film has not yet begun filming, and even with its press pushing at WP:GNG, guideline WP:NFF suggests that we not have an article on it until actual filming can be verified. However, my own research shows the short prequel film does meet WP:NF through release and coiverage, so I just completed THIS. I invite you to look as I wish to overwrite your redirect with this new article. And too, the article on the released prequel will give us an acceptable target for the film article currently at AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another article of yours has drawn a fair amount of attention. Maybe not the best kind, but the authors have read in your article a kind of distillation of the spirit of St. Louis. Fishal (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, a friend of mine pointed that out to me. It's a website that's known for its petty toxicity, so I'm proud that they hate the article. I'd be worried if they praised it. Their approbriation is almost purely of the childish, superficial, anti-intellectual nature, more seeking something to attack than of any critical value or noteworthiness...so it's little more than a casual chuckle.

— Kaz (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kazvorpal, how about adding kalpak and bashlyk to List of hat styles. ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I get a chance, I will, but you're also welcome to add them before I get around to it. Lists are for everyone to edit, just like any other article. Remember, the single most important guideline for a wikipedian is be bold.

—Kaz (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Winifred Bonfils, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade, and one thing we understood back then is that you don't have to source non-controversial information. The idea that every single clause not footnoted should be removed comes from dishonest people wanting to censor true information by wikilawyering it away. Removing non-controversial information entirely, rather than putting a "citation needed" flag on it or fixing it, is the sign of a bad editor. — Kaz (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please provide source for your recent claims on the article about Hayek? --AnulBanul (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly, and thanks for being a good enough editor to ask. Too many just delete material instead of adding a ^{[citation needed]}, adding the reference for themselves, or at least asking. It comes from the ugly tendency of a few editors to use wikelawyering as an excuse to censor information they don't like, but it's spread to infect too many common or rules-obsessed editors. — Kaz (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:No original research. Your recent additions to Salt and History of salt had serious problems and have been (in part) removed. Please always base your edits on WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kazorpal: there is no botanical reference or scientific citation for Rubus leucodermis as the "blue raspberry". This is likely a marketing term represented in the references you chose as spam and WP:NOR. The content you have tried to add is also original and not supportable by a reputable WP:SECONDARY source. Lastly, please do not edit war; your reverts today on Raspberry put you into WP:3RR from which you may be blocked from further editing. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zefr, there is no NEED for a botanical reference or scientific citation for rubus leocodermis being CALLED Blue Raspberry. There need only be the fact that some people call it that. This is one of the basic premises of Wikipedia, that it covers normal things, not just scientific things. In fact, the general guideline for naming conflicts is that the commonly used name be chosen, not the technically correct name. One of the MANY other basic Wikipedia guidelines you seem to be unaware of is that non-controversial content does not need to be heavily footnoted at all, much less by secondary sources. The cold, hard fact is that some people DO refer to leucodermis as blue raspberry. That botanists don't is irrelevant. That it may have originated with marketing is not only irrelevant, but may actually SUPPORT its inclusion. Deleting non-controversial information because you don't like the footnotes is bad editing. It is irresponsible. Don't be a bad editor. Grow up and learn some of these important core concepts of Wikipedia. Oh, and no, my reverting your wrongful reversion ONE time is not 3RR. What's more, tag-teaming with a friend or sock-puppet doesn't protect YOU from 3RR, which essentially you've already hit. Again, grow up and learn how to be a GOOD editor. — Kaz (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. I'm notifying you that an article you created, List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others, was recently nominated for deletion. The nominator is supposed to notify you, but as far as I could tell, they did not. FYI. Its at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

([3]) The way you write it, it comes across as WP:OR --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pig Latin: We're not supposed to use YouTube clips as references in the article, but you can see the 1938 scene where Moe teaches Curly pig Latin here, starting at the 60 second mark. It's referenced in the Tassels in the Air article, as well. Likewise, you can see the 1934 example here. Note that this is a non-controversial point, where there is no doubt it occurred, and where it's not an important topic, nor is the claim problematic. Therefore it doesn't rise to the level of needing hard citations in order to be included. — Kaz (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't doubt they spoke in Pig Latin in the films. I meant the bit where you said "It may have been popularized by", which seems to be your opinion, currently. --Dweller (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll change it to "perhaps the earliest example of modern pig Latin", which until someone finds an earlier example, it is. This lets the reader draw his own conclusions. — Kaz (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that with "perhaps the earliest", you - and therefore Wikipedia - have still stated your own thoughts, rather than reporting what a secondary source says. We can't do that. Just state the facts - that there's use of Pig Latin in films from xxxxxxxxx... --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There needs to be a way to state the fact that it's earliest example found. Search for yourself, there is no known mention of the modern variation of Pig Latin anywhere, before it's referred to in the Stooges videos. —Kaz (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I've rendered this irrelevant, by finding an earlier version. — Kaz (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that a new editor put several tags on an article you created without explaining why. [4] It's not obvious whether this was an attempt to discredit the article or done in good faith, but I thought you should be made aware 03:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.229.242 (talk)

Kaz, I apologize for a big revert on your edits to Edgar Allan Poe. If I had more time, I'd fix it myself, but I see many problems with integration of the new information -- minor stuff like quotation marks on story titles, but also things like reference style matching the article, and seamless transitions ("The same year..." Which year?). I hate to do something so drastic to an established editor like yourself, but I get cautious with this featured article which gets such heavy visitation. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to address these concerns myself. Again, my sincere apologies, and I hope not to have offended you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kazvorpal. Three-hand effect, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 17 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three-hand effect, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two hands can sound like three? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three-hand effect. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Halcyon-logo.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 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) 03:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Our-enemy-the-state-nock.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's Module:Multicat supposed to do? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm using it to practice lua, but ultimately it will let you add multiple categories to an article at once, instead of having to type [category:blah] repeatedly for each one separately. — Kaz (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Our Enemy, The State, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page.  czar 21:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Kazvorpal—thanks for your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's content on anarchism and thought you might be interested in the anarchism WikiProject. We've done some great work (over 20 pieces of recognized content), but there is plenty more to do. Come say hello on our talk page or let me know if I can help with anything. Hope to see you around. czar 21:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our Enemy, the State, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taylor Baldwin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Baldwin 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. Rogermx (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for improving the section title for Exposition (narrative)#Incluing. However, please leave an edit summary for each edit, so other editors will understand what you are trying to do. And please be civil per WP:ESDOS. You did not need to call me a "douchebag" in the edit summary for this edit.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You exercised irresponsible editing, by removing the edit entirely instead of fixing the typo. A typo is not valid justification for censoring an article, nor is "didn't explain", in and of itself. — Kaz (talk)

Hello. I took an interest in your Cyberpunk article in advance (barely) of its DYK appearance and made quite a few fixes. There are still some large issues however. Here is the comment I left on Talk there:

• I recovered material in the Novel section that was not displayed due to a faulty ref tag set. There are problems: the narrative about selling and not publishing the novel now seems self-contradictory or maybe redundant. Was it not published because the publisher "regained his sanity and decided not to release it", or because the ending was not changed as requested? Also, several claims lack anything I could find in your citations so I had to add citations needed tags. Can you address these issues prior to the DYK appearance? RobP (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for fixing what I'm guessing was my typo. I think it can safely be seen as self-evident that when he says "recovered his sanity" he was being self-deprecatingly ironic, trying to make it clear he was glossing over some unfortunate story...which he actually went into years later, in the other quote. — Kaz (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 31 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyberpunk (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the cyberpunk science-fiction genre was named after the 1983 short story "Cyberpunk" by Bruce Bethke? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyberpunk (novel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Dianthus plumarius at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dianthus-plumarius.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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've reworded the hook some per your suggestion. That article has been sitting in an embryonic stage in a sandbox since about 2013, when I went on an extended wikibreak (most of the last 5 years), about time I got around to finishing it, lol. After tweaking it the other night and posting it, I realized it was almost time for the solstice and decided to DYK nom it, synchronicity, haha. Heiro 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you did. I lived a few miles from Monk's Mound until I moved to Atlanta last year. I'd noticed that redirect and wished to fix it at some point, but of course I always have fifty things I intend to get around to. I've had some tabs open for articles I wanted to make for months, and am just getting around to them, myself. It's astonishing how many unmade articles there are in the genres of older music, horticulture, fishkeeping, paleontology, and monetary theory. I just added the first song registered for US copyright, The Kentucky Volunteer, and one of the first rock & roll songs, Crazy About My Baby Oh, and by odd synchronicity, I have one open to remind me to make Silkhenge, an article for the bizarre web-building phenomenon. — Kaz (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what you mean. When I first started editing the coverage of US archaeology stuff was dismal to say the least and the Mississippian culture was almost nonexistent except for a few major sites and a bunch of NRHP (a wikiproject was doing most of that and they just covered the basics, mostly about them being NRHP sites, lol) related articles. Heiro 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed! I actually made the Monk's Mound and Mound Builders articles, though that was a dozen years ago. But even for back then, I was shocked they were missing. — Kaz (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome! I've worked on both of those articles over the years, especially the mound builder one. It's too bad I didn't get to the woodhenge article sooner. It would be cool to see at DYK tomorrow for the actual solstice, it's been approved but it's so far down the queue I doubt that would happen, lol. Cheers, Heiro 00:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of The Kentucky Volunteer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Kentucky Volunteer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the lyrics to "The Kentucky Volunteer", the first song copyrighted under the United States Constitution, were written by "a Lady of Philadelphia"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Kentucky Volunteer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

encourage people to read

Thank you for quality articles such as List of basil cultivars, Dreadstar, Catalaphyllia and Yellow curry, for "encourage people to read about these wonderful, but apparently overlooked, bits of human knowledge", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks...Weird box, but I love it! —Kaz (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1828 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Pinetops-boogie-woogie-label.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Crazy-about-my-baby-blind-roosevelt-graves.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Red-rider-young-thing-wild-dreams-rock-me-1984.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Module:Kazhello, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gemini-Suite-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am boggled by how wrong you are. The image description on its page says "Original sketch of a silkhenge structure, by moi." In other words, I drew it myself. I also tagged it "own work" and released it GFDL. How much more permissiony could it get? — Kaz (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Adin Ballou article, in revision 850485276, you tagged one section as unreferenced while adding a whole additional unreferenced section. Please add citations. Daask (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you kindly refrain from making personal remarks, especially in edit comments. I don't agree with your action, but that's an editing decision which can discussed: indeed, earlier discussion would have been desirable. But I strongly resent the remark about myself. If an edit is large and out of place, it is appropriate for any editor to remove it: size is no obstacle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then be a more responsible editor. Wholesale removal of large sections because have some criticism is wikilawyering, one of the most extreme forms of bad editing. Be a responsible editor and fix objections you have, instead of censoring whole swaths. It smacks of some agenda that involves hiding information you don't like. — Kaz (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've recently been adding ((information)) blocks to uploaded media, to help get them transferred to commons:

It would be much appreciated if you could "claim" the following:-

• File:Naga.jolokia.75x.jpg
• File:Red.savina.450x.jpg
• File:Thai.hot.75x.jpg
• File:Rocoto.75x.jpg
• File:Chiltepin.150x.jpg

These are own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: this edit: If you're going to convert gigaseconds to years and claim six digits of precision, you have to have the length of a year right. A year is not 365 days. A sidereal year is 365.256 363 004 days. A tropical year is 365.242 190 402 days.--Srleffler (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:UNSOURCED makes this perfectly clear. You should also know better than to call other editors names, especially in edit summaries. I'm sure you know about WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason you have to deal so much with better editors criticizing you, so that even on your own page you have to complain about "vulgarities", is that you are a bad editor when you wikilawyer articles. This isn't name calling, it's an observation of fact. And, ironically, that is me assuming good faith, as the alternative would be that you're not a bad editor per se, but malicious and machiavellian, deleting non-controversial information you don't like, when it could better be fixed or tagged.

And therein is the crux of your bad editing, illustrated by the WP:Unsourced article that you linked to, itself. It explicitly states that "in some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". And if you were sufficiently competent to have really read not only it, but other content on such topics, you'd know that the criteria for when to instantly remove center around how controversial either the information or the topic are. An article about some silly paranormal hypothesis, pointing out that it's popular as a trope in movies, is far from controversial. Especially a simple set of examples easily verified, some of which anyone even vaguely familiar with pop culture instantly knew when perusing said list. No, when you wikilawyer articles, using minor issues to remove information wholesale instead of either fixing it or adding tags suggesting fixes, you are being a bad editor. It's just that simple. You should actually learn from the many people who complain about your abuses, not whine about it at them. — Kaz (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense. I've replied to your comments about me on my talk page where I'd like the names of the "better editors" and some of the alleged "many people who complain about my abuses" (I hope you agree that is a personal attack and shows lack of good faith - and will offer proof that you're right). The text you refer to about what types of comments I'll remove from my talk page is about 11 years old, added when I became an Admin after reading other Admins' talk pages. All Admins get nasty comments on their talk pages from time to time, it goes with the territory. I prefer to just have my page automatically archived, including the critical stuff, but there are limits. And bad editors don't get elected to the Arbitration Committee twice. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carry On (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aphrodites-child-the-four-horsemen.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Four Horsemen (Aphrodite's Child song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by Alan Menken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Feldman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of the Heavenly Horses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhao Xu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contribution to Sloop. I've gone ahead and reverted it since I'm rather sure the info you added pertains to Sloop-of-war. The Sloop article is simply about a type of rigging, rather than a type of warship. Also, the etymology is already in the article. Let me know if you don't agree. --Cornellier (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whispering gallery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abolition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ceramic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You added unsourced commentary to an article. I reverted it as unsourced commentary and would do it again. You should have a source for material you are adding and cite it when you add it. You know this. Whether or not the source you later added is reliable (currently disputed by a third editor) is a separate issue.

My revert does not make me a "bad editor" and this was not "Wikilawyering". I do not appreciate the pejoratives.[5] You boldly added commentary. I reverted it as unsourced. Rational discussion is the next step. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, what you did was exactly bad editing. What you appear not to understand is that while it'd be ideal if everything were sourced, the only stuff that needs to be removed without sourcing is controversial claims. It is precisely wikilawyering to immediately remove material that is not even faintly controversial. Instead, a good editor adds a citation_needed tag, or any of a dozen other measures. The idea that everything should be immediately removed comes from corrupt editors who seriously want to censor information they know to be supported. A Clinton supporter regarding his sexual assault and rape accusations, or a Bush supporter regarding the Salon.com article alleging cocaine use, et cetera. If you don't want to be a bad editor, don't imitate the bad editors who set the unacceptable precedent of removing anything over the slightest imperfection. — Kaz (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinton and Bush are living individuals and bad examples here. If you added poorly sourced allegations of criminal activity to either article, I'd remove them without a second thought and give you a WP:BLP warning.

Unsourced interpretation of creative writing is always controversial in my book. For decades, the obvious non-controversial interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 was that it is about censorship. I was taught that interpretation 2.5 times (once in middle school, in passing in high school and as part of a lit survey class as an undergrad). What the heck, that's what it's obviously about: written during the McCarthy era, with literal book burning by an oppressive government in a dystopian future. The author said no. While it was influenced by then current events, his major topic was media destroying creativity.

If you have new material to add, cite a source. Please note that your addition has now been reverted by two editors independently, with both asking that you cite a reliable source for the material. The "bad editors" seem to be piling up here.

If sticking to Wikipedia's pillars and requiring a source for material that I dispute is "Wikilawyering", I'm finding difficulty in interpreting WP:WIKILAWYER as saying that, especially the bit about "being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer". - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are actually proving my point, in each of your arguments. "Clinton and Bush are living individuals and bad examples here. If you added poorly sourced allegations of criminal activity to either article" No, you see, it is a hard fact that those allegations were reported in the most solid secondary sources. But wikilawyers would find the slightest flaw in the general guidelines (which is what we have in wikipedia, not hard rules) and censor information they knew to be true, using them. Bad grammar, a poorly formatted reference link, any vague anomaly they could find would result in whole paragraphs being removed. But then newbies showed up and accepted this corruption as the way Wikipedia is supposed to be run, and bad editors like you were born, who do not fix problems, do not mark them for others to fix, but actually remove information that has a valid place in an article.

"Unsourced interpretation of creative writing is always controversial in my book." Yes, because you're a bad editor. You may want to look into that.

"For decades, the obvious non-controversial interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 was that it is about censorship. I was taught that interpretation 2.5 times (once in middle school, in passing in high school and as part of a lit survey class as an undergrad)." If you would remove such information from the Fahrenheit 451 article today, it'd show you not only to be a bad editor, but an abysmally incompetent one. The correct way to deal with such data would be to say exactly that academics and schools have taught for years that the book is about censorship, ideally including who said it and what they said. But to also include the author's comments, and discussion from other academics who follow his line of reasoning.

"If you have new material to add, cite a source. Please note that your addition has now been reverted by two editors independently, with both asking that you cite a reliable source for the material. The "bad editors" seem to be piling up here." Yes, it's an epidemic of relative newbies, who are stuck at a level of incompetence that infected Wikipedia because of the wikilawyers. As long as you instantly remove any edit that lacks a source, instead of using the ubiquitous citation_needed, you are a bad editor.—Kaz (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you add contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced, it should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I can assure you I will do exactly that, every time and warn the editor. If they restore it without a solid source or discussion, I remove it again. As necessary, the "bad editors" called admins are quite willing to block the editor. You see, such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States. That's not "lazy", "incompetent", that's policy. As a "newbie" here, working on my 15th year with no blocks, editing restrictions, interaction bans, etc., I seem to be doing a remarkable job of flying under the radar.

If you feel my removing your unsourced analysis is so horrible (and justifies calling me a bad editor, lazy, incompetent, etc.) and that removing unsourced controversial claims about living individuals is somehow Wikilawyering, I invite you to meditate on WP:NPA and WP:BLP before considering whatever other action you feel is necessary to free the project of the menace I represent.

If, OTOH, you want to simply vent about being another innocent victim or WP:NOR, that's a shame. It's not my job to find sources for material you add and that's unlikely to change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Kazvorpal, you recently edited the Diatonic scale article, adding that "It may seem odd that diatonic scales are actually heptatonic". This reflects a previous change that I had modified, that "the Greek word diatonikós (διατονικός) [...] essentially means 'through whole tones'". I had deleted the word "whole", because it is not clear that the Greek τονος meant whole tones.

You probably mean that it is odd that diatonic scales are not whole tone scales. Greek diatonic scales, however, have been heptatonic (including semitones) from the start, which probably mean that the Antique Greek word τονος did not mean whole tones. I added the reference to the tension of strings to indicate what the probable origin of the word was.

Il view of this, there is nothing odd in the diatonic scale being heptatonic. We cannot begin discussing the original meaning of Greek words (and of their modern English counterparts) in this article, and I propose to delete your recent addition quoted above. I won't do so without your advice, however. Without further news from you before, say, 48 hour, I'll consider that you tacitly agree. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had meant that if one thinks of heptatonic meaning "seven tones", then it can feel like "di-atonic" means "two tones". In explaining music theory to people, I've had that question raised more than once. I suppose it'd actually be biatonic, but "di" sounds like "two" to someone who doesn't differentiate between Greek and Latin. Like Polyamory vs polyphilia or multiamory. —Kaz (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will have seen that another user reverted your edit today. I must confess that I wouldn't have imagined that you refered to a confusion between "diatonic" and "ditonic". [The Latin would be "bitonic", not "ditonic", I think.] Note that the Greek δίτονος means a major third (two tones), and that "ditonos" is used today by some musicologists that I know more particularly to denote a Pythagorean major third. This all is interesting and should perhaps figure in the article, but not in the section on History, more probably in the lead or, better still, in the Diatonic and chromatic article. I let you see to that. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrell Corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Er'el has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page was an unnecessary re-direct from the original and correct 'Erelim' page, and it provides inaccurate information (language, spelling, some translation issues, as well as rank) and completely lacks sources. Original 'Erelim' page still in existence, under the correct name, and is currently under construction with accurate, sourced data; this page is not necessary to keep around. Requesting its deletion, and that the article page titled 'Erelim' take its place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magic-ramen (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Erelim. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 5#Erelim until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Magic-ramen (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Audu Paden has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

Non-notable producer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Passing mentions only in news sources, only substantial coverage is on non-RS social networks. Article is unsourced due to a lack of credible secondary sources – having previously relied on a single WP:UGC source.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp/dated)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only source? It took me ten seconds to verify his filmography on IMDB. — Kaz (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audu Paden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audu Paden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 15:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Elizabeth I. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume it because you have a history of deleting whole swaths of information fo technicalities, a bad editing practice called wikilawyering. Like to keep information you don't like out of some feudal monarchy's articles. —Kaz (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Elizabeth_I into Arthur Dudley. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DanCrow.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. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The-black-family-in-slavery-and-freedom-herbert-g-gutman.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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ted Kavanau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Kavanau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Against the Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mauritania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kush.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ibn Battuta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Beaujolais (province). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Eric ^talk 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Honkey-tonk-train-blues-meade-lux-lewis-parlophone-1935.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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't cite the IMDb or copy its data into Wikipedia. It's user-generated and thus not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Troy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hittite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you stop edit-warring at Appaloosa and discuss instead. The material you've repeatedly added is by no means uncontentious, and the source you've provided is not a WP:RS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take big issue with the format of List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others, which uses unnecessary colors and a clumsy table format. Per MOS:TABLE, it should be converted to prose format with sections by album and subsections for each song. I've reformatted the first album at my user subpage. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Franz Oppenheimer

added a link pointing to Robber baron

Millimetre of mercury

added a link pointing to Anaximenes

Pressure measurement

added a link pointing to Anaximenes

Torricelli's experiment

added a link pointing to Anaximenes

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Franz Oppenheimer

added a link pointing to Robber baron

Millimetre of mercury

added a link pointing to Anaximenes

Pressure measurement

added a link pointing to Anaximenes

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lex iniusta non est lex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthropogenic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Turner & Hooch (TV series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People engaging in bad editing need to have it pointed out, or else they continue to damage Wikipedia. This isn't a participation trophy situation where everyone needs to be treated like a snowflake. One of the biggest problems here is that bad people wanting to censor Wikipedia normalized wikilawyering, and then relatively new editors get the harmful impression that deleting valid, but arguably flawed, info is normal and good. That must needs be deterred. — Kaz (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Cauliflower, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Zefr (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On my talk page, you said: I made a good faith edit on Cauliflower, containing accepted, non-controversial, mainstream information. You may have had an objection to one of the many references I used, but that did not justify deleting it all, wholesale. Blanket removal of valid information, instead of fixing flaws, is a kind of wikilawyering that is bad for Wikipedia. You should not engage in that kind of behavior, it is abusive and unacceptable.

Your edit here was promotional to diet fads, unscientific blogs as sources, and frankly full of nonsense. Read WP:MEDRS which guides source (and content) selection for topics on human diseases, health and nutrition. There was little "valid information" in your edit not already provided in the nutrition section of the article. Learn sourcing and do not use blogs, healthline, eatingwell, keto diet or other unscientific sources. Zefr (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are wrong, in many ways disappointing in an editor who, while newer than myself, has been around a while. First, some of the information in that article was unarguably true. For example, Cauliflower is 98% water, and 60% of its carbs are from fiber, which is not accessible as calories to human beings. Likewise, that it's used by people on those diets, in fact is central to replacing certain starches, is an unchallenged fact not included anywhere in the article. None of those details are even arguable, and all of them are valid in the article. Even if low carb diets were complete nonsense, that they use cauliflower would be worth including. But whether those diets are sound is a matter at worst up in the air for debate, not something definitely settled against them. You're sounding a bit cultish and biased...which is often the underlying when an editor deletes information wholesale in a wrongful way as you did there. You need to learn more about proper editing on Wikipedia, rather than posting incompetently threatening tags to a user's wall to support your bad edits. You could, at most, have challenged some of the sources...though certainly not all...and fixed specific details that you considered arguable. But there is no question that some of it was sound and worthy of inclusion, and removing that was an unsound abuse. — Kaz (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only science-supported fact in your edit is that cauliflower is 92% water, shown in the article's USDA nutrient table, which displays the carbohydrate content as 5% and the fiber content as 2% (or 40% of the carb total), not 60% as you stated. All the other content you wrote follows mainstream promotion and misinformation tailored to fad diets. Nutrition is medical content on Wikipedia, and therefore requires strong, peer-reviewed sources published in reputable journals or books, or by clinical organizations (not like your blog sources), as described in WP:MEDSCI. Competence in recognizing source quality and ability to write scientific content are assumed for medical editors - perhaps you are not in the right topic area for your competence, WP:CIR. Zefr (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auberon Herbert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dianthus-plumarius-plant.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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The double thank-you of capitalism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neologism, not found in common usage (or in a WP:BEFORE) except as a quote from Wikipedia, and not even found in the claimed source article from 2007 - with some WP:SYNTH to attempt to retrospectively justify the neologism to Milton Friedman and Adam Smith! Should have been deleted as an essay long ago. Would need examples of the actual phrase being in RS usage to be kept.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Red.savina.450x.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused crop

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pai gow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavens.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Look Mom! Productions, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syndicalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutualism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indo-Greek Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Night After Night with Allan Havey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero sourcing found

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Night After Night with Allan Havey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night After Night with Allan Havey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm TenPoundHammer. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Night After Night with Allan Havey that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kazvorpal. I notice that you are the one who made that page, Doomlands. I have updated the page a bit on the Production, Episodes, Plot, and even adding more references. Reply back to me or thank me for the expansion.--VictorRocks (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kazvorpal. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Look Mom! Productions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kazvorpal. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Look Mom! Productions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aerial steam carriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katsu curry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katsu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Competent-man-heinlein.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. ✗plicit 00:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elvis sightings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Men in Black.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]