91.125.234.72 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)sorry that i deleted someone else's narrative the other day. did not understand the edit. my computer seems to put my response in the wrong box, or more truthfully i do.== Your Messages == How do I leave the AfD template in place.Reply[reply]

Consent Provided Response

Here you go... Okay, see if placed the statement/links at the bottom of this one correctly: http://www.spasnstuff.com/hot-tub-faq/hot-tub-history/anthology-of-the-hot-tub-a-brief-history-of-the-spa.html Please note the following is the source for both History of Water Filters and History of Spa Filters, so we only have the declarative statement once...Is that OK?): http://www.spasnstuff.com/hot-tub-faq/history-of-water-filters/history-of-water-filters.html

I am indeed the author of all three articles and was sharing the content - the release statement seems fine, but do I place it at the end of the article on the Spasnstuff.com site? Then when done - do you restore the articles - or do I place them again? just checking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwricker (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barr1331 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you I am doing this as a College assignment and it is due Tuesday for my professor to see and I am playing around to figure out wiki. And trying to find the best information on the topic.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barr1331 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded on the talk page. If you could provide a comment on why the article shouldn't be moved, I'd appreciate it. The fact is that "God Bless the Ring" is a part of the games title. Calling the article simply Ehrgeiz gives it an incomplete title, which is why I requested the move. The Prince (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Welcome to St Pancras International. This is a Network Rail owned and managed station with train services provided by First Capital Connect."

Hi there. I noticed you contributed to the debate and survey on the proposed move to St Pancras International. I saw the above static message on the platform monitor screens on the Low Level platforms (Thameslink) this very morning. I have taken a piccy and will upload as "Exhibit O" hopefully within the next 12 hours. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you were one of the originals that helped keep this article, you might want to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolando_Gomez_(2nd_nomination)#Rolando_Gomez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Tevildo, read the guy's article and you'll see why I put those butts up there (that and the fact that I had nothing better to do than to browse around looking for guys' butts on Commons). ;) Drmies (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to remove in case your boyfriend/girlfriend/parents/professors/children are in the habit of checking your talk page... ;) Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for closing the AfD on this article which I wrote.

I notice someone also put a COI tag on the page. I offered full explanation regarding COI on the Discussion Page of the article, but am unsure of the process for review (and hopefully removal) of the COI tag.

Any guidance would be much appreciated.

Stu Segal (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Tevildo, With due respect to the deletion decision of the article Death and Adjustment Hypotheses, I want to request you to help me create an article on the book Quest for a New Death, the first book containing the hypotheses. Practically, I am the author of the book and it is really odd and tough for me to create a neutral article on it. But if it is worth it, I want that article to be created. Even I can supply you with the report from the Death Studies journal. Please try to help me. I will be glad if you reply me on my e-mail mohammadsamirhossain@yahoo.com .Shoovrow (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. If you see the following web page you will find some statement from Robert A Neimeyer of the University of Memphis, who is also the editor in chief of the Journal "Death Studies" - http://www.bircham.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=109 Also the reference from McGraw-Hill is from a website that contains educational material for higher education courses from the part of McGraw-Hill itself. Could you pls help me write the primary structure of the article, so that I can add to it? Please try to help me at the primary stage, cause it is not pleasant to see the afd tag with any article. If you give me your e-mail address to mine mentioned above, I can mail you the full documents to write down the primary version. Please try to help me.Shoovrow (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tevildo. I like the way you are proceeding. I should let you know that the first day when I found the MCGraw-Hill article was a bit confusing for me. I searched for the author of it by clicking its back links but they were all forbidden for the browsers. All I could find that it is purely a McGraw-Hill property. It seemed a bit funny to me finding myself so significant in McGraw-Hill educational material. Even I tried to verify the authenticity of the web page. But all I found was McGraw-Hill and the courses that it offers for higher education. Finally I accepted the truth and decided to use it as it is practically! Also I have another 3rd party reference to my book. It is the highest daily news paper in our country that reviewed my book. You can see it at http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=56607 . Here you will find the cover page photo of the book too. I am afraid there is no more first class 3rd party reference to the book as far as I can think. Let me know what further can be done. Oh! another thing. My second book, Human Immortality, containing the elaboration of the theory was published in 2008 and also got reviewed by the same journal (waiting for print) and that one is also under a review by the special interest group for spirituality at Royal College of Psychiatrists at London, but all theses are awaited for print.Shoovrow (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Tevildo, I am waiting for your further response.Shoovrow (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks my friend. I understand and I hope to come back later in future when things will get stronger. Thank you again.Shoovrow (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Prince of Cats, for asking this question at WP:RD/C in the first place; I'd always wondered but not gotten around to asking it. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

apologies for deleting the narrative of someone else when editing. I am having trouble navigating the site. however find users information invaluable. apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.234.72 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Prout patet per recordum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prout patet per recordum. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Powers ^T 13:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I did nnot intend to re list an old deletio page, but start a new one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. User:Steguru? Remember to log in so that you can pick up your talk page messages. :) Tevildo (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, I do not resemble that remark. Wrong user. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please reput your support. We could use it in the United States Discussion.Red Wiki 03:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

While that may be true, there are plenty of flaws in both of the editors that I doubt any administrator would consider good. You may have been around a long time, but I promise you, change is possible, even by the smallest margin. I've been put down quite a lot, and I think a lot like you do due to these experiences, but this discussion has a chance. When I first started this, I did it more as a joke, didn't think that it would last long, maybe a day or two. But look at it now!Red Wiki 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Many thanks for your work in correcting all the instances of the incorrect name.Bruern Crossing (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Students for Economic Justice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hello, Tevildo. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Language#Incomprehensible_posts_on_the_Language_Desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

In case you're interested, I have started a proposal to have Mihkaw napew banned from responding to comments on the Language reference desk. The relevant thread is WT:RD#This is not working. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasted five minutes in reverting it. 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, remember my old guide for Life & Death II: The Brain? I've picked the game back up since I can run it well on DosBox now, and I'm still trying to do a proper aneurysm procedure. Now I can get it to where I can go through the whole procedure from beginning to end -- properly, as far as I can tell -- but each time, it tells me I didn't clamp off the aneurysm even though I did and paid extra attention to doing it the second time around. Did the game ever do this to you? Drop me a note on my talk page or e-mail... - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You once were involved into an article naming discussion of Chihuahua (state). There is now a new move request you might be interested in: Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) TopoChecker (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies that this covers an edit from several months ago -- to regulate my watchlist I keep a number of articles on an 'off watch list', and check these weekly. I got rather behind with one of the lists...

OK, in this edit to the BR Class 04 article you added a hatnote pointing to the "Brush Type 4". I don't understand the reasoning for your addition. The terms 'class' and 'type' would never normally be interchanged in these contexts. For diesels, 'Class' always refers to the TOPS class, while Type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 refer to groups of loco types arranged by power output. The Brush Type 4 is Class 47 and is never going to be mistaken for a Class 04 shunter... Could you explain please?

EdJogg (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you're not currently active, so I've been WP:BOLD and removed the hatnote. We can replace it later if appropriate. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I added the hatnote because I was reading an accident report from the sixties in which the loco in question was referred to as a "Class 4 CoCo". I suppose anyone who is in the habit of reading accident reports from the sixties would know that it should have been "[Brush] Type 4" instead, but I thought it was possible that someone would want to look up "Class 4" based on such a source; at the moment, they'll only get to the shunter page rather than the Class 47 page. Perhaps ((distinguish)) rather than ((See also)) might have been a better hatnote, but I agree it's not essential. (Tevildo not-logged-in) 80.254.147.84 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, interesting. The accident report must have been pre-TOPS then, when classes came into existence. I had not come across such terminology before. Official accident reports are usually quite precise, and I would expect accompanying running numbers and even manufacturers to be quoted. As it is qualified with 'CoCo', any confusion at BR Class 04 would be short-lived, although I acknowledge that the reader would not know where to go next.

Tricky.

My gut feeling is to leave the hatnote off. The term 'Class 4' is not widely used (at least, not since TOPS was introduced), and the Class 47 page would also have to be modified to mention this alternative name -- at the moment it doesn't even mention "Brush Type 4" in the lede text. There is also the problem that the British Rail Class 50 could also be called a Type 4 (English Electric, in this case).

Looking at my 2 'Observer's' books, the 1961 version does not mention Type 1/2/3/4 at all. The 1966 version clearly refers to Type 1, Type 2, etc

If you have a strong feeling over this, I'm happy to get the matter discussed at the UK Railway WikiProject, where we could get a broader set of opinions.

EdJogg (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that this draft page has been dormant for over a year. Please blank or delete it until you are ready to post the RFCU.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MFD is that way if you feel so strongly about it. I'm no longer an active contributor to this site, as this sort of message exemplifies its current ethos perfectly. Do not expect any further input from me on this issue. Tevildo (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Requested move. -- Alarics (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Tevildo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

80.254.147.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

((blocked proxy)) <!-- 87.117.139.78:8080 -->

• Blocking administrator: ProcseeBot (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: This is still an open proxy, I can connect to it right now. If you still need to edit this way, email myself or a checkuser or an Arbitrator. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tevildo. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ww2censor (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many, many thanks for all your work on this. The redoubtable Mrs Specer will be rescued from obscurity! As regards the New Forest ponies, I always have a tinge of nostalgia for the Epping Forest cattle who used to freely roam the streets of Leytonstone and Wanstead before the advent of BSE in the 1980s. Long may the ponies safely graze. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welwyn Tunnel rail crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway (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) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and your picking up my obviously off-play and drifting-away second question : among french sexologists, an intercourse is said (or rather was said some 50 years ago...) to be "eupareunique" ("nice union" in greek) when physically and psy.lly satisfactory for both partners. As for "thanatophily" , I suddenly wondered if it is correct in english after having used it in the french meaning, as "cultural tendency to love (or not to be afraid of) death, as Mexicans and Japoneses are said to be" ; in french, having sex with corpses is called "necrophilie" . T.y. , have a nice summer (& beware sun-burns, as must the boy in front of the wall, in the middle of the B.n'W. photo supra ;-) ) . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you hat Silieini, I'll support it. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really sure how to use the hat template, and I don't really want to get involved in the rather confrontational issues that it seems to engender. Is this guy possibly the "Washlet" troll we had a couple of years ago? Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not familiar with that name. I'll put a comment on talk. Hatting should not be controversial, it merely collapses comments, it doesn't delete or hide them. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have some questions for you regarding leg crossing: 1.) No offense for asking, but are you male or female? 2.) How do you cross your legs (in what way/style)? 3.) What does it feel like?

Thanks! ;) SuperHero2111 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for this and this. My genuine edit was getting blocked by an automated filter for reasons unknown, so I wanted to test whether all edits were blocked and then forgot to delete the test edit that worked. 86.160.216.217 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain why you have hatted my comment at the "Converting motor to generator" thread on the reference desk. [1] The hatnote certainly makes no sense at all unless it is you that is the banned editor (which does not seem likely) and your edit summary makes no sense either, there is no user:WickWack and the IP did not self-identify. SpinningSpark 15:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For WickWack's ban, see this WP:AN posting. The IP user you replied to is definitely WickWack (IP address, geolocation, writing style, subject matter), and I think it's more sensible to hide replies to illegal postings as well as the postings themselves. Perhaps it might be better to delete (rather than hat) WickWack's posting and your reply. Tevildo (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not particularly objecting to the post getting hatted (or even deleted). It is just that there was insufficient explanation for me to understand why it was happening. A link in the edit summary would have helped, or even a note on my talk page. I am enough of a semi-regular at the RD to realise that this sort of removal is a frequent occurence. However, the post was not obvious trolling and my reply was good faith. If I had been a newbie your action would have been quite disconcerting. SpinningSpark 16:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided the first response to the Ref. Desk question and object to the hatting of subsequent comments because:

• it is done disregarding the OP's question and making no attempt to volunteer useful information. The stated aim of the "hat" is to stifle discussion of the particular motor shown, which will prevent the reasonable subsequent question by SpinningSpark being answered.
• a reference desk should respond with best-effort answers to questions and not entertain prejudice against real or imaginary persons.
• The post that mentions a squirrel-cage motor is coherent, constructive and compatible with my own post. It simply addresses the motor principle in more detail than I did. I do not appreciate having my posted answer now isolated as the "only acceptable" one of three but that is exactly what Tevildo's action does. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those that troll and disrupt need to be stepped on hard, even when they have their "good guy" face on. "Good guy" is invariably followed by "bad guy". Banned by the community means you are not allowed to edit here - period. I have now deleted it altogether along with my own response. SpinningSpark 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably the best thing to do in the circumstances. I should point out that 84.209.89.214 is _not_ WickWack, and, if WickWack is reading this, all he has to do in order to be able to contribute is register an account. Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear, I rewrote a deleted article. Please help me improve it. I have informed those those who deleted it in the past. I shall be very grateful if someone experienced pen through it and help it improvise in any way. the article is Death and adjustment hypotheses. I shall wait for your kind touch.Bolton007 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are various drive-bys reverting something you posted on the science ref desk. This, for example. Do you want this text kept, or are you OK with that IP deleting it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I gear up for my city's annual Labor Day parade, let me thank you for the blunt mention of class traitors in that discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC) (President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 91)Reply[reply]

? You didn't offend me in the least. I was relishing your little slap at class traitors, may they starve when the Tories fire their gormless arses! (I'm no fellow traveler; I'm an old-fashioned Milwaukee Christian social democrat with syndicalist leanings.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the answer on the science help desk :) Retartist (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THANK. ALREADY TRY IT.EVEN TKE OUT MOBO FROM THE CASE ALSO DISCONNECT ALL CONNECTION AECEPT PSU CORD.PROBLEM STILL PERSIST.219.94.83.162 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a test. 195.89.37.174 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tevildo! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of leaving a trail of things like "Deleted question from banned user", just revert the edit and note in the edit summary that it's a banned user. The fewer remnants of these miscreants we have on Wikipedia, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, it just reduces the likelihood of more drama and reduces the troll feeding. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I opened an AfD, maybe you'd like to chip in. Thanks. --Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for replying here but someone had the idea to increase the protection level of the page so I can’t reply back.

Basically I’m just interested if I’m exempted from filing a W8_BEN. I’m afraid no french attorney will know about that. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I must have missed something [2]. Is "WickWack" yet another refdesk sock troll? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not exactly a "troll", just a banned user who exhausted the patience of the community several years ago, and who hasn't given up yet. This is the relevant AN discussion. Tevildo (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, didn't know about that one. How do I recognize them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tevildo's handy guide to WickWack detection. Tevildo (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read that AN discussion and I still don't really understand what the ban was for. As was mentioned in the discussion, it's not his fault that he uses multiple IPs. So what did he do wrong? Sign his posts with different names? That doesn't seem like an abuse of WP:SOCK or WP:GAME to me, not even close. --Viennese Waltz 08:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah wait, I see it now. The use of different names to reinforce each other, pretending to be different people. Yeah that's not a good look. Sorry for the unnecessary intervention. --Viennese Waltz 09:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you look at users' edit histories and consider recent edits and blocks at the ref desk before you greenlight questions about "civilised congolese". Search my user page for "negress" and "congo" as well, and draw what conclusions you like. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any suggestions I have in this area would violate WP:NPA. Tevildo (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i was asking a perfectly legit question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald williams jr. (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there.

'[Surrounding your four tildes inside markup deemed improper] is likely to get you banned from the Reference Desks if you persist in it'. I know. That's life: you share information and reply to questions, then forces majeures interfere and you have to stop. What's funny is that Wiki prides itself on enabling anonymous editing. Neat username. See you. ~~~~

Actually wikipedia prides itself on enabling editing without creating an account. It's made quite clear that this isn't really anonymous, and in fact in many ways the anonymity is lesser if you choose to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, in terms of anomymity, by and large we don't require you to give away any information and protect within reason what info we can. If you choose to edit without an account, you choose to give away your IP and anything that goes with it. If you choose to edit with an account, you have to provide a user name (which can be random) and a password, but only the username needs to be revealed. The nature of a wiki, particularly an open source one means that by and large, anyone can see every edit you've made. Linking it to a specific person can be a bit harder without an account, but it depends significantly on what you do. If you choose to always edit the same place, with the same tone and language and with the same silly behaviour, people are going to quickly learn who you are. Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi!Thanks for the answer at refdesk about percent change.--85.121.32.1 (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi.

The deletion is not a big deal. But who or what is a VoteX? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears to be several of my contributions which have been deleted: I have never used VoteX as a user name, and have no idea why you should choose to remove a string of my contributions. I don't think they were offensive or irrelevant, and would appreciate an explanation. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't delete other people's contribution on the refdesk, or accuse them of being a sockpuppet without a shred of evidence. I've restored my contribution. EDIT: I see this user has done this before. Ideologically motivated, it seems. Please stop doing this or you will have to be reported. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I do love legal history and the development of the common law, so I welcomed the chance to learn a bit by answering your reference desk question! Happy editing. Neutrality^talk 17:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criminal Law Act 1827, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criminal Law Act 1827, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry III. 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) 10:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to think I may be this previous user. My IP address was changed by my provider on May 25th - they seem to make a habit of this, as this is the third different address I have had this year, with never a warning or explanation for the changes. If it matches one previously used by a banned user, that is a coincidence, and nothing more.86.191.126.192 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (previously 86.191.126.192 and 217.44.50.87 and 109.150.174.93)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately you are using an IP range very similar to one used by User:Vote (X) for Change, a long-term banned nuisance (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change, where you can find a list of their known ranges). You also share with them the habit of being habitually active at the refdesks, so your edits are quite easy to mistake for theirs. I actually trust you you are not the banned user (I noticed your IPs consistently geolocate to somewhere near Norwich, whereas theirs are in London), so you have my apologies if your edits got deleted or something. However, in the long run, if you want to avoid being the victim of such misunderstandings in the future, I can only strongly recommend you register an account, which is quite easy and will keep you safe from mistaken identities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, this reversion by the above IP of a confirmed VoteX sock is probably the biggest red flag. I would repeat Future Perfect at Sunrise's recommendation to the IP user to register an account if they wish to continue editing - and advise them that postings to the reference desks should usually provide references. Tevildo (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhm, no, that revert didn't have anything to do with VoteX, as far as I can see – it was a reinstatement by this IP of his/her own earlier posting, which had been (mistakenly, I presume) reverted by somebody else. Their edits also seem to be consistently a good deal more on-topic than those by VoteX, and you'll notice this particular one actually did include refs just as it should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without going back through all the histories, I _think_ that the starting point was a typical VoteX-style rant about the evils of the NHS, but I agree that the current IP user's postings have not been in this category, and I hope they'll continue to contribute productively to the reference desks and elsewhere. Tevildo (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really sure a question about military strategy during world war two, based on scholarly works, that has generated no controversy would be any reason to instigate disciplinary measures against me again? --Andrew 00:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious, what did you prefer about the previous set of maps to the new ones? Always looking for ways to improve it (hence why I spent a year redoing it). :) --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied on the article talk page. Tevildo (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LED Annotated.PNG. 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) 20:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today when I reread your reply to my question, I was shocked to find the lower image vanished leaving behind an ugly footprint, so did my best to create just one like that from my memory using PaintBrush. Hope you'll find it okay. I thought it necessary because the answer to questions can't be understood without that diagram. 203.134.197.96 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

203.134.197.96 - Thanks for doing that. I'm not an expert on image uploading, and I didn't find the right combination of templates to use. It seems to be OK now. Tevildo (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted my part of this.[3] But it's OK. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that re WP:RD/C#Windows 10 N LTSB, I've raised the subject of whether what was being asked for was financial advice on the refdesk talk page - wt:Reference Desk#Financial Advice. Thanks, davidprior ^t/_c 22:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete my contribution on the misc ref desk about tall buildings in Europe? There was no reason to. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Once again, you reverted an edit by 86.131.187.216, which I can't see as fitting VoteX's disruptive pattern (not that I'm familiar with her). Before you delete refdesk edit based on it coming from an IP once upon a time used by VoteX, could you please perform due diligence, such as seeing where the IP currently geolocates to? Or did you in fact have a reason to suspect that the answers to futurist110's insurance questions did in fact come from the actual VoteX, beyond the mere IP address? Did they fit VoteX's known patterns? As I said, I'm not familiar with her, so if you have reason to think it was her, feel free to say so. 110.140.84.37 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tevildo, Regarding this [4] removal: is there a reason why you are acting against our published guidelines? They clearly state:

[5] emphasis mine.

Is this you being WP:BOLD and applying WP:NORULES? I'm curious, because I have repeatedly pointed out on the talk page that we are encouraged to remove responses that give medical advice, rather than censor questions. I was tempted to revert your removal, but decided to ask about it instead. In my opinion there are many scholary references we could point the OP to, without giving any sort of medical advice, even broadly construed. I think ToE and User:Wnt's responses were perfectly professional and well within our scope. If you feel this needs more input, feel free to copy over to the talk page. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is VoteX?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Georgia guy: - See WP:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Tevildo (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you seem to deal with this most often, just wanted to check I was right [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nil Einne: - Yes, that has all the hallmarks of VoteX, and I would agree with your deletion. Tevildo (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you know that was VoteX? I'm not saying you're wrong, just curious to know what tells you. Same question for [7]. --Viennese Waltz 07:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems the editor concerned decided to prove it by coming back and edit warring over it and a bunch of other stuff anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, positive proof of a VoteX posting is her restoration of it under a different IP. We also can see two very big indicators in the Grover Cleveland example - use of ((xt)) for quotes, and referring to other users by their full username. Apart from that, "long, irrelevant, and subtly inaccurate" is how I've previously characterized her material, of which the posting NE deleted is a good example - I'm sure she understands the difference between "necessary force" and the defence of necessity in English law, but (I believe) her goal was for someone to correct the confusion between the two in her post so that person could be berated. Whatever turns her on, I suppose. Tevildo (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't personally noticed this, but it's an extra factor to consider. Of course, if VoteX is aware of this, she may take steps to correct it - indeed, if she were to stop behaving like VoteX and make reasonable responses to questions, those responses might very well escape deletion, and positively contribute to the desks. WP:BMB still applies, of course. Tevildo (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you didn't manage it this time. Tevildo (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<rant>I go away for two days, and VoteX is over the desks like herpes. Why do people not _think_ before replying? This isn't intended as a specific reply to anyone above, but I need to say it somewhere. VoteX, do not expect any sympathy from me in future, despite what I may have said recently.</rant> Tevildo (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Tevildo. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Tevildo. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Tevildo,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of The Doctor and Student 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

On 18 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Doctor and Student, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that The Doctor and Student by Christopher St. Germain was used as a primer by English law students for over two centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Doctor and Student. 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 it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Computing Desk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8#Computing Desk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tevildo, I am a bit confused about the CASEL redirect. I do not think it makes sense to redirect an abbreviation for an institute (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, American education institute) to an article about a general concept. There might also in the future be an article for the CASEL institute. Sda030 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tevildo, hope you're having a great day. I was the person who put the hatnote (back) into the Uriah Heep article. I was aware of the WP:NAMB guideline when I made the edit, but I think this is a case where it would make sense to ignore the guideline. At least in my location, a Google search for Uriah Heep returns only the band (both wiki results and otherwise) - even several pages of results in. This (a) makes it more difficult for people looking for information on the Dickens character to find the Wikipedia article (a lot of people find Wikipedia articles through google searches, not the main page) and (b) leaves a sizable number of people uninformed about the non-musical usage of the term. This might be a case where following Wikipedia legalese to the letter is at odds with informing the public. I figured a hatnote was the simplest solution short of converting the Uriah Heep article into a disambiguation page. I don't believe strongly enough in the issue to edit-war over it, though, and won't revert it if you disagree. --Tserton (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tserton: Thanks for your comments. I've copied them to Talk:Uriah Heep (band), which I think is the best place to continue this discussion. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Tevildo. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I have given the “more detailed analysis” you requested. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Thanks! My main concern was to address the argument regarding incoming links, but I'm sure the additional references will be useful. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Curtiss R-1454 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tevildo! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for updating that dab page. I’m currently in the process of adding entries, adding redirects, making sure there aren’t any duplicate dab pages (there’s been a few “x class” and “Class x” dab pages with the exact same content), and adding WikiProjects where necessary for every single class article between 1 and 99. It will take a while even with automated tools like AWB. Fork99 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fork99: Thanks! We used to have a category Types that would have simplifed this sort of thing, but it was deleted. I've created the redirect 21 Class - we might also want 21-class, as that's the usual spelling in article titles. There's always lots of useful (and, unfortunately, thankless) work that can be done in this area. Tevildo (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tevildo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Curtiss R-1454, 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) 13:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Jenny N.E. Dotz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 11 § Jenny N.E. Dotz until a consensus is reached. SilverLocust 💬 20:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]