User talk:Almanacer

Morfydd Llwyn Owen
Hi - just wanted to explain the reason I took the reference to the "Portrait of a Lost Icon" CD out of the list at the bottom of "Discography" and covered it in more detail above. It's because the CD is not a compilation, but the first ever devoted to the works of Morfydd Llwyn Owen exclusively. It also includes a mixture of vocal and instrumental works, not just songs. To me, having it in the list is confusing unless we also change the introductory sentence to something else (which would be a shame as it does fit the description of all the other recordings on the list):

"Owen continues to be a revered figure of Welsh musical tradition, and many of her works have been recorded in compilations of Welsh songs and music. These include:"

Thanks Sfjohna (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Sfjohna Hi. Restructure and rewording now in place taking account of your comments and useful additions to the article. Almanacer (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Horner
Thanks for your work on the Arthur Horner, but Wikipedia depends on references. If you are unsure how to reference, tell me the book, author, publisher, date, ISBN and the page where the date is mentioned, I'll reference it myself. Cheers' FruitMonkey (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The Welsh Encyclopedia does hold errors, I've found several myself. Look forward to your correct updates. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, keep up the good work. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bipedalism and the wading hypothesis
Hi,

Regards this edit, the point is not that it's supported with reliable sources. We can get reliable sources that support nearly any point. The issue is that it's undue weight. The aquatic ape hypothesis is a fringe theory in the first place - no serious anthropologist sees it as a contender for explaning bipedalism (or naked skin, nose shape, skeletal changes, etc. for that matter). The wading hypothesis is itself a fringe theory within the aquatic ape hypothesis - a fringe of a fringe. It gets two hits on google scholar - neither of which is a peer-reviewed publication. As wikipedia is meant to be built on secondary sources (which would be review articles and scholarly books summarizing thoughts regarding bipedalism in this case - as a scholarly subject the guidelines and definitions regarding medical articles are more appropriate) rather than cherry-picked primary sources. The point is to demonstrate the appropriate debate within the scholarly field to a degree which represents how the field actually thinks. In the case of bipedalism, there appears to be a tiny, probably negligible (in my opinion I would guess less than ten scholars) who think that wading had any impact on the evolution of bipedalism in human ancestors. AlgisKuliukas is one of the few, and appears intent on promoting his theory on wikipedia (a WP:SOAP problem) in such a way that whether he considers the theory convincing is the determining factor rather than on what the scholarly community thinks.

The only reason the AAH appears on the page at all is because it has considerable popular appeal. The "wading hypothesis" lacks even that, but it does have a vocal proponent attempting to push his theory onto wikipedia, the reason we don't give COI accounts much weight here.

I would prefer to remove the statement again, despite the sources, for presenting an unbalanced impression of debate or credibility when there is none. Please let me know what you think, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * There's a reply for you on my talk page. Also note that per the talk page guidelines, if you're starting a new section it goes at the bottom of the page - the blue + tab at the top of the page does this automatically, or you can edit the last section and add a new heading.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hola, note and note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence + reference you keep trying to add cannot be added - the reference does NOT support the claim of the sentence. I can send you the PDF and point you too exactly the line that contradicts it. Mokele (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MLOwen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MLOwen.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual abuse against Ernest Jones
I'm sorry but your latest edit does not accurately reflect the modern balance of opinion about the trial and your ref does not support the text in your latest edit. I have given good references at the Ernest Jones talk page for a balanced view being far less favorable to Jones. You are giving Maddox's bio of Jones' as the source (reference 3) for the following  "he pursued his research interests in childhood sexuality during interviews with four children with a line of questioning that resulted in him facing trial over allegations of improper conduct." As the book Susan Isaacs: a life freeing the minds of children page 67 makes clear Maddox does not support that text, quite the opposite in fact, as Maddox is cited for the opposite view: "the details of his trial suggest that he might have been very lucky to escape conviction (Maddox, 2006)". Overagainst (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * note 2 follows the Maddox account in referring to the possibility of Jones's loss of self control and his own inaccurate account of the episode. But there is no consensus on this. Maddox's account is based on the Kuhn account in Studies in Gender and Sexuality 2002 v3 but the same journal carries Makari's refutation of Kuhn's arguments.  (Makari is the most recent historian of psychoanalysis qv Revolution in the Mind 2008). Given the episode occurred before Jones had met Freud and fully committed himself to psychoanalysis I don't see it as significantly relevant to an overall assessment of his life and career. BTW Maddox points out Jones went on to publish his research findings derived from his interviews with children. Almanacer (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MLOwen.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:MLOwen.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud
Almanacer, when someone requests that you take a dispute to the talk page, you should do that. It's an expected part of editing here. Your edit to Sigmund Freud here was a serious mistake. You have added multiple links to Freud family in a completely unnecessary way, and the manner in which you have ignored my concerns and reverted without any attempt at discussion is aggressive and destructive. It may not have been your intention to add useless multiple links, but that is what your edits have actually achieved. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Sigmund Freud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repression (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) 10:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Freud Talk page Science section". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Freud dispute resolution request
Almanacer: In view of the impasse, I have place a dispute resolution request:  Esterson (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries
Hello, Almanacer. You recently made the following comment about me ("a further example of misrepresentation by this editor akin to his fraudulent account of the Medawar text") in an edit summary here. Permit me to point out that, if I misrepresented Medawar, I did so unintentionally. I welcomed it when Esterson pointed out my mistake, and invited him to fix the relevant text, which he then did. That is hardly evidence of "fraudulent misrepresentation" on my part, and your calling it that violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA as well. Please don't make such comments, as they are offenses for which you can potentially be blocked. If you continue, I will be forced to make an issue of it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John E. Llewelyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierce (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) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Freud
Almanacer, I would appreciate it if you could respond on the talk page under my latest post. If you choose not to respond, I will revert back to my original contribution. Regards, Jeroen1961 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject
Cymrodor (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello!
Nice to meet you at the meetup earlier! The Land (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimeet in Swansea
Hi Almanacer. I'm told by Jonathan that you may be interested in a wikimeet in Swansea. I'm in discussion with staff and students about such a meeting and will be there on the 28th to discuss further. Would you like to meet up? You can email me on my WMUK email which you will find here. All the best! Robin - Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cardiff WikiMeet
Hi. Just letting you know that we've now got a dedicated space upstairs at the Urban Tap House. See you there! --Rhyswynne (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Noah Ablett
I have just come across Noah Ablett's involvement with the Plebs League on the The Independent Working Class Education Project. I wondered if you have any local information about him.Leutha (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A Thank You
Hi. I want to thank you for your propagation of broad and sweeping statements with no support whatsoever. Isn't that the foundation for the perpetuation of ignorance and illiteracy? Keep up the wonderful work. Thank you again. Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=598447015 your edit] to John Llewelyn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2005. “Rester Af og fra Fragmenter af Kierkegaard I Glas,” Per Krogh Hansen and Roy Sellars, eds, ''Kritik og

You appear to be involved in multiple reverts concerning a BLP matter
Your editing continues to be a BLP issue since Prof Peter Gay, a living author, never states that Freud became a regular professor. You have generously been given an opportunity to discuss this BLP issue on the Talk page by User:Casliber and are ignoring this offer by re-posting your erroneous claim about Freud becoming a regular professor and erroneously attributing it to a living author. Prof Peter Gay never, never claimed that Freud was a regular professor. Resolve your issue on Talk prior to re-posting your edit. You have been given a generous offer for Talk discussion by Casliber and then you ignore it by re-posting your own erroneous attribution to Prof Peter Gay for your own personal reasons. Prof Peter Gay never claims or states that Freud became a regular professor.

Please note that if you continue multiple reverts to text which has been flagged for BLP for your own personal reasons that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy for multiple reverts. Take the invitation of User:Casliber and resolve this on Talk prior to re-posting an issue that has clearly been identified as a BLP issue concerning a living author.FelixRosch (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jung: "Letter from"?
Are you sure your citation "Letter from Mortimer Ostow" on the Jung page is correct? If the letter is "from" Ostow then Jung did not write it as the passage indicates. As I said in the Undo note, there is a logical issue there. I thought I would let you know before moving it to the talk page since the citation may be incorrect. HullIntegrity (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring against two editors on Freud page.
You appear to be involved in edit warring WP:EW against two editors including @ImprovingWiki on the Freud Talk page concerning the following edit which has placed you in a WP:3RR violation with your next edit. Please stop edit warring WP:EW and use the Talk page at Freud to establish consensus prior to further edits which would put you over WP:3RR violation and subject to possible ANI. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 21:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Sigmund Freud
If you continue edit warring on the Sigmund Freud article you will be blocked. That means no more reverts unless it would be covered by WP:3RRNO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Mention of the shape of the skies, in the skies
Hi Almanacer. I do not suppose that you are necessarily much found of remarks that are made meaningful without any visible indication that they are reasonably so, but you've been exposed well long enough to Martinevans123's ingenuity to be able to stand say, one expressing of my own once. Check the Edurne article and enjoy! The clip can be viewed using one of the song's article's refs. I haven't checked current editorial content of Bipedalism, I'm sure you will agree that's about big waves in the limbus. --Askedonty (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out those golden boots !! "Åh, jag ville gärna önska, Åt alla gyllene skor." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud
Thank you for being the first person after nearly 15 hours, to actually give a valid reason on why the edit to the article shouldn't have been added. Jim1138 and FreeKnowledgeCreator continued to revert my edits, claiming that my edit was against WP:DENY, which wouldn't apply in this situation. Once again, wanted to thank you for being the one voice of reason in this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevvin (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome Almanacer (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
 * https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luther Emmett Holt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baby and Child Care. 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) 09:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, at The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Your recent editing history at Karl Marx shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Karl Marx. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * This editor is engaged in flagrant POV pushing - see the relevant talk page. Almanacer (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morfydd Llwyn Owen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Trotter ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Morfydd_Llwyn_Owen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Morfydd_Llwyn_Owen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 22:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morfydd Llwyn Owen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herrick ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Morfydd_Llwyn_Owen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Morfydd_Llwyn_Owen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Morfydd Owen Nocturne.jpg
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) 17:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Anna Freud
Hello. I have created a new section on the talk page of Anna Freud re the suicide of her partner's daughter and alcoholism of her partner's son. I regard the reference I provided as reliable - an interview with Dorothy Burlington's grandson on a BBC documentary made by Adam Curtis. I could rephrase the section to make it clear that it cannot be proved that Anna Frank's methods contributed to the suicide or alcoholism. These are significant facts, I don't think they should be omitted.DH987 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello I have replied to your comment on the talk page.I will not restore my previous contribution, but I think it right to add a few lines on Mabby's suicide. The book I reference on the talk page is based on a series of interviews with Dorothy Burlingham, although critical of Anna Freud, it is not unsympathetic.DH987 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ernest Jones.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ernest Jones.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Annoying pinging
I keep getting pinged as a result of whatever you're doing in your sandbox (which looks dodgy). Please do not ping me again without good reason. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn (talk Sorry purely accidental pinging in trying to deal with annoying bot Almanacer (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis
Can you please explain how this was non-constructive? It is not whether it is fringe science and/or fringe theory, but I thought that such links could still be useful.

Science Focus says that "Westenhöfer interpreted an aquatic ancestry for humans within his 'initial bipedalism' hypothesis. According to this idea, humans are the most structurally primitive of primates and the ancestors of all other primate groups. This work is generally regarded as 'fringe' science today." The lead says: "The hypothesis is highly controversial, and has been criticized by many as a pseudoscience. The hypothesis is thought to be more popular with the lay public than with scientists; in the scientific literature, it is generally ignored by anthropologists." The body also says: "The AAH is not accepted as empirically supported by the scholarly community, and has been met with significant skepticism. The Nature editor and paleontologist Henry Gee has argued that the hypothesis has equivalent merit to creationism, and should be similarly dismissed."

Considering that many laymen seem to see fringe as crazy rather than "an idea or a viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship of the time within its respective fields", I think it was exactly the opposite of non-constructive, and I would like to clarify what was the main issue—that they are not relevant (I think the body begs to differ), that it is not fringe science and/or fringe theory? But a 'See also' link is not like a 'Category', and I thought that they fit MOS:SEEALSO in being relevant to the topic. Perhaps the issue is that it is, in fact, ignored and thus does not fit the aforementioned fringe academic definition? Thank you for your time. Davide King (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Davide King. My position re your edits to See Also is simply that because the article topic is a contribution to evolutionary theory it’s best to confine links to those topics which are likewise in that domain.  This follows the MOS guideline: “Articles linked should be related to the topic of the article”. I appreciate that this is also a matter of editorial judgement but my view is that to broaden the range beyond the topic of the article itself is unconstructive – do we include feminism for instance (mentioned in the body) or “umbrella hypotheses” along with your suggestions? Where to stop?  Almanacer (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a sound response, thank you. Davide King (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Karl Marx. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Sigmund Freud considered conversion
Endless sources including his wifes own words and Jones biography on him say he seriously considered conversion to protestantism to avoid the jewish ceremony. Its a fact that belongs right where it is about his jewish wedding and of course i state he didnt end up converting. You seem to be wanting to exclude something that would offend your own pov or religion.Foorgood (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Townhill, Swansea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Pleasant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)