User talk:Ariel.

Re: Evangeline Lilly
All actors in Lost has this template in this page with the exception of this actress. I don't see this as being fair because all other performers on ABC's Lost has this Wikitemplate. I really don't have to put up with an edit war about this, but if you don't believe the reason why the LOSTNAV template has to be in this article, here are some references for example: Emilie de Ravin, Malcolm David Kelley, Daniel Dae Kim, all Lost performers have this template. It is extremely advisable that you check all Lost performer pages (like the aforementioned for examples) before you even attempt to remove the template. Hopefully I've stated a good reason why you need to put a template like I said even in an actors/actresses page. If you have a problem with that, you can either talk to me or Yamla. Thanks. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it should be removed from all the actors pages. 71.199.123.24 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To recap: the ACTOR does not live on the lost island, only the character does. The actor does not get a lost nav on their page. Only the CHARACTER page gets it. Imagine if someone acted in 10 shows - does that mean they get a nav area for each one of the shows? No. They don't. They get links to their character page for each of the show, and on that page you put the nav. 71.199.123.24 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaaa...bring it to the attention of Yamla, since he pretty much watches over the pages. I'm not gonna do anything radical about the pages to protect my image, I'm gonna leave the "Lostnav" issue between you and Yamla.  I'm not gonna interfere with this affair any further. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll leave a message for Yamla. Although he'll probably notice the message I left in the history log. Also: I have finished removing all the nav tags from the actor pages. 71.199.123.24 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the reason why I want you and Yamla to discuss this (and any reasons why you MUST remove the Lostnav template from its respective pages) is because I'm really against removing templates from certain pages since that's a really radical move to make. Do whatever you think it's right, but keep in mind that there could be times when I might disagree with something because I consider it to be radical, and I just don't want to be the subject of an edit war under any circumstances.  Also, I don't want the user to be in trouble for something he/she would never do. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have left a message for Yamla. You never said your opinion on the matter, just that you don't like radical changes. Basically I want to keep the distinction between the real and the fictional. 71.199.123.24 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding my position on the matter, I'm pretty much neutral. Hope that answers all of your questions. :( &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Account
Have you ever thought about creating a Wikipedia Account? Just curious, that's all. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have actually - but I want the username Ariel, and that's taken User:Ariel. If not that one I can't think of a username........ 71.199.123.24 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not taken (that's why the link is red instead of blue). Feel free to sign up with the same (especially before someone else gets to it). -- joturn e r 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is taken, it's red because he hasen't created a user page. 71.199.123.24 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the log page for "Ariel" does not show that an account was created with that name... unlike, for example, my log page. If Wikipedia tells you that the name is taken, that is very odd. Perhaps you've seen a post by someone with a different user name who has changed his signature to "Ariel" ? --Eliyak T · C 15:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably impolite to add to a nearly four-year old discussion, buuut since it wasn't archived... :D I was just going to add that, even though by now you've figured out your username, you can always have the appearance of whatever name you want by changing your signature line in your preferences. In other words, you could remove the full-stop (period) from your signature if you wanted, although to be honest, I like it, it's kind of quirky. Okay, carry on. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  06:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Korban
Hello, Korbanot is being used in a sense that includes the complete set of Templeofferings -- meal-offerings (Mincha), wine-offerings, the first fruits on Shavuot, the water libation on Sukkot, etc. etc. FYI, doves weren't the only kinds of bird-offerings, see Leviticus 1:14. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the other kinds are not 'sacrifices' in terms of the english word. Saying usually makes it seem like humans were killed too. Maybe say something like animals were sacrifcied, and the other stuff was offered. Ariel. 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Coccidioidomycosis and dogs
The above disease is listed on the List of dog diseases, and I tried to tag all the articles listed there. In many cases, these articles hadn't been tagged at all yet, so I figured having the articles receive a quality assessment by whomever ultimately would be useful in general. For articles of perhaps "B" quality or higher, I also tried to ensure that the article itself specifically mentioned the canine aspect, however, for comparatively short articles, there wouldn't necessarily be enough information on the article to indicate which species of animals, human and non-human, were effected. I do have to acknowledge that I personally don't know based on the info available to me how common a disease it is among canines, because we don't have anything anywhere about that, so if it is a comparatively rare disorder among canines I would have no objection to the tag being removed. However, I do hope to be giving quality assessment rankings to all the articles I have tagged, if nothing else to make any subsequent rankings by other projects I bit easier and to let the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have an indication of the current quality ranking of as many articles as possible. Unfortunately, I don't really know which other projects would consider the article within their scope, so the only one I could reasonably put down was the dogs banner, given that disease being listed on the list of dog diseases. I hope that answers your question, and, if you know more than I do about the subject (which wouldn't be hard in this case) and can say that it has only a minor connection to canines, I wouldn't have any objections to the banner's removal. Badbilltucker 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an inactive Disease project and an active Medicine project. The latter project does assessments as well. Unfortunately, I am not personally at all sure of the scope of the latter project, being involved in actually none of the scientific projects, so I can't be sure whether they would consider it within their scope or not. So far as I can tell, those are the only other ones which even might claim the article to be within their scope. I understand your reservations about tagging diseases by the species affected. Generally, however, so far as I have seen, we try to make sure that any given article on a disease or fungus or whatever includes information on all the species affected and how they are affected. As I am virtually certain there is no current project relating to veterinary medicine (not that I would mind seeing one) this may be the only way to ensure that such content is ever introduced. Badbilltucker 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

 * Regarding your re-addition to Coccidioidomycosis - I'm not randomly removing the link because I'm passing judgement on the blog in question, but Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources says that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources." I'd like to have a conversation - let me know what you think. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I put blog in quote in my edit summary because it's barely that, rather it's a medical analysis of the show. If you read a bunch of his reviews of the show you'll understand what I mean. A blog is someones personal thoughts - yes that's in there as a review, but also in there is scientific medical analysis of how realistic the medicine on the show is. I think it's an excellent source. Ariel. 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the WP:RS guideline and the WP:V policy both seem to be clear: on-line or otherwise self-published sources are acceptable as primary sources (i.e. in an article about the Polite Dissent website itself), but are not acceptable as secondary sources (as in this case). Again, I'm not trying to "pass judgement" on the site -- I suspect the author is probably right -- but as I see it, the citation guidelines say "No can do" on this kind of usage. -- MarcoTolo 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Barring any further comments, I'm pulling the citation per above. -- MarcoTolo 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply because I don't know what to say - I completely disagree with you on this, and reading the guidelines only makes me more sure you are wrong about this. This is a doctor reporting standard medical knowledge, it's not personal stuff, there is no agenda, it's not even remotely contraversial. I don't understand why you think there is anything wrong with linking to someone giving very simple medical information about a show - and the stuff he says is very easy to verify. Not to mention we are talking about a TV show, which doesn't really need such super verification anyway! I think you are making a mistake and blindly applying guidelines without thinking about them. Ariel. 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear - I'll try to be a little more logical in explaining my position. First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know how you think I'm misinterpreting the reference/citation sections of WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that I'm not trying to be confrontational in asking - while I think I've considered the guidelines carefully, I'm under no delusion that I'm perfect.
 * Again, I having nothing against the blog in question - I had never seen it before looking at your link . I also don't suspect you (or the blog) have an agenda. I do, however, think that references need a bit more "authority" behind them than "some doctor named Scott says so". And yes, the author's comments are pretty easy to investigate - what I'm saying is that Wikipedia should link to those reliable and authoritative sources directly. This gets around the problem nicely, which, after all, is why we have a guideline for this stuff in the first place. Citing reliable sources also allows for more specific, more nuanced referencing. As an example, the author's comments about coccidioidomycosis not having a neurological component are generally true: To be more correct, you would have to note that neuro symptoms in coccidioidomycosis infection is uncommon, but not unknown (here are a couple of PubMed refs I dug up in about three minutes:, ), but then you might as well cite peer-reviewed journal articles themselves.
 * I hope I've been a little clearer - let me know, eh? -- MarcoTolo 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thermoluminescence
Hi, I saw you made an edit about 2 months ago on the article Thermoluminescence, and I was wondering whether you'd still like to work on that article. I really have a knack for picking the articles with the least people to working in them for editing. Anyway, somebody added what would be the best source we could get on external links, so we have some actually verifiable information. All we'd have to do is check for copyright and, if there is no copyright on it, add info from it. Thanks for any help in the near or further future. Slartibartfast1992 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on AGLOCO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) 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 the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Od Mishehu 11:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Etrog
I removed the plants category because that belongs on the Citron article. Etrog (a hebrew word for the Citron) is specifically about the religious aspects of that fruit. Ariel. 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean WikiProject Plants banner on the talk page? From what I understand, Etrog is a specific variety of Citrus medica (though NPGS/GRIN lists the variety epithet as "ethrog"). It is thus within the scope of WP:PLANTS as it is a formal taxon. Even though the subject matter of the article doesn't really mention the taxonomy or botanical history of the variety, it either should or another article, Citrus medica var. etrog, should be created that does discuss those aspects (per the flora naming convention). If that second article is created, then the taxobox should be placed at that article and removed from the Etrog article. --Rkitko (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Etrog without Pitom.jpg and Image:Etrog with Pitom.jpg
Hi, I would like to use the images in the franch wikipedia but actualy I can't cause there is no information about the sources of the documents, if you are the owner of the photo please just add "own work" and it will be all right. Regards--Kimdime69 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my own work, but I'm not sure what you want me to add to the image. The license is not enough? Ariel. 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, to put the file in the french wikipedia I have to download it in commons witch have realy strict copyright policies, if you just add on the files that those photos are your own work it will be OK. Regards.--Kimdime69 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Robert Hawkins
I added a discussion on the redirect of Robert Hawkins (Killer) on this talk page. Please comment if you have an opinion. Gtstricky (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NeedfulThingsDVDCover.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:NeedfulThingsDVDCover.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: backwards dates with bot
Answered at my talk page. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Time travel is possible
Read Einstein's theory of special relativity and time dilation. Malamockq (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read both of those, but they both cover only slowing of time. NOT travel back to a time that already passed. Obviously you can travel to the future. But travel to the past is not possible, since the past doesn't "exist" as it were. Time is simply the speed/rate at which stuff happens. It's not a place you can go to. Ariel. (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Traveling forward in time counts as time travel. As for traveling back in time... Well that we don't know about. It's not a place you can go to, but I haven't read any scientific theories that state that you can't travel back in time. There are causality issues, but I don't think there is any conclusive data on the subject. I believe Carl Sagan stated that time travel into the past, may be possible using blackholes or wormholes. Malamockq (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The blackhole wormhole idea is incorrect. Of course, I don't have a reputation compared to Carl Sagan, or other physicists (so I understand if you don't believe me), but it's still incorrect. As I mentioned in the reference desk posting, I really want to add the info to the article, but without references.... Basically time dilation only applies to mass/energy. A wormhole is not mass or energy, it's a region of folded space (if it exists). So time dilation doesn't apply to it. Aside from the (incorrect) wormhole idea, there are no methods of time travel that are consistent with physics as it's currently known. Ariel. (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to say, I don't take your word over Carl Sagan's. Btw, a Wormhole is a passage connected by two blackholes, and the two blackholes indeed have mass. Malamockq (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, not all wormholes have blackholes at the end. Second, there are not two blackholes, but just one. People commonly imagine a wormhole to be a long tunnel, but that's not correct. There is no tunnel - you enter one side, and immediately exit the other. And even if there was a tunnel the two blackholes would feel a massive attraction, and would be inevitably merged together. So, there is just one blackhole, and whatever you do to one side of it, happens to the other. It's not possible to accelerate just one side, and thus have time dilation on just one side. Another problem is conservation of energy - suppose one side was moving fast when you exited - this would mean if you entered one side, not moving fast, you would exit moving fast, which isn't possible (a: when did you accelerate, and b: what about conservation of energy). All of this means that you either: can't move just one side of the wormhole without moving the other side, or, that just because the mouth of the wormhole is moving, doesn't mean that _you_ will move with it. i.e. you exit wherever the mouth happens to end up, with no velocity. But if that is the case, then time dilation also does not have an affect. Either way you look at it time travel via wormhole is not possible. Ariel. (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether there are two blackholes on either end of the wormhole wasn't really the point right? There are two "mouths" and the mouths (or at least one of them) have mass. You may be right about your other points, I'm not sure entirely. What I do know is, a lot of scientists accept the possibility that backwards time travel might be possible. Malamockq (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that if there is mass, it can't be 2 masses, but just one, so you can't do different things to the two masses. Or it's not mass, but then time dilation doesn't apply. And it's only some scientists that accept time travel, most don't. It's because quantum physics has some weird stuff in it that people talk about time travel, plus the symmetry of how backwards time flow matches certain physical processes (like matter looks like anti-matter if you reverse time). But I don't think anyone seriously thinks time travel is possible, not to mention wormholes probably don't exist either, and even blackholes have never been seen, just theorized. Ariel. (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Locked-in syndrome
Hi. I left a message on the talk page here: Talk:Locked-In_syndrome. You're right, trivia should be integrated, but you simply can't include every mention of a medical condition that occurs on TV. Imagine what the cancer article would look like. Please integrate any material that can be, but I do think most of it needs to go. Wikipedia can't be a repository of every mention of a subject in popular culture. Dgf32 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign to erase leaders on woman page
Hi. I'm writing to you since I thought that you might appreciate the formerly deleted examples of women leaders on the woman page. There has been a campaign to deem them superfluous and to blank them off the screen. Then, the parties involved declared a "consensus." (I restored the deleted material.) Thought you'd be interested, Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster firgure.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster firgure.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dollhouse_Dushku.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dollhouse_Dushku.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick note
Hi there,

When uploading non-free content (including copyrighted images), please be sure to add a fair-use rationale. In addition to conforming to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, doing so will drastically cut down on the number of messages on your talk page. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fringe poster figure.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster figure.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Christopher Pritchard (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Mordechai Dov Brody
Firstly I want to thank you for contributing to the Motl Brody article. At least here in DC he's been in the news a lot, and his wikipedia bio is one of the first hits in google so it seems like something we should certainly be working on improving. I reverted a few of your additions though, and although I explained on the talk page I wanted to leave you a personal message too. Essentially the two issues are appropriateness and references. Your statement about the "most common position" could easily be worked into the article, but it needs a citation. The rest of the verbiage was simply not appropriate to the particular case. There is no question about what measures should or shouldn't be taken to prolong Brody's life. The question is whether Brody is alive or dead. (If Brody were still alive, there is no question the hospital would leave him on the ventilator). Just keep in the back of your mind that the Brody article isn't the place for a detailed halakhic discussion - the article should really be specific to him and his case, and while a brief mention of the general halakhic status is appropriate, it's probably not the place for a full dissertation on the issue.

As a side note, I have been thinking for a while that an article on End of life in halakha could be a very interesting article, so if you feel driven to start it, that would be a great place for a full dissertation. --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the removal - you left the more important changes in. The talk about prolonging life was about if halacha would require shocking him to try to start his heart if it would stop. I think it would not require that, but at the same time you can't stop it deliberately. Ariel. (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the need for such an article, unfortunately I'm not sure I could write it - what I know about the subject came from a book I read a while ago, but I don't think I could distill it properly or show various sides. Ariel. (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How to make legitimate editorial comments
Just as a tip off, you might like to look at using the tag or especially the   tag if you want to make an editorial comment - it directs readers to the talk page where you can challenge. Or if you know it to be false, just delete it, preferable with something at talk saying how you know. [Don't ask me, I haven't a clue about this stuff, I'm just morbidly curious!]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about undoing your edit
Sorry about mistakenly undoing your edit to List of common misconceptions. -- BenRG (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Cirque4.jpg
File:Cirque4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:A Cirque du Soleil clown at the Mirage Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Cirque5.jpg is now available as Commons:File:An acrobat performing in the contortion act of Cirque du Soleil's Nouvelle Expérience, 1994.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Balanced field takeoff
Hi Ariel. On 4 January you edited Balanced field takeoff to add Soft field takeoff to the See also section. There is no Wiki article with this title so your edit appeared only as a red link. I have reverted your edit for several reasons. However, if you can nominate a sound reason for having Soft field takeoff, either as a new article or as a See also, I would have no objection to the link being restored.

The reasons I reverted your edit are:
 * No article exists titled Soft field takeoff, and I am unaware of such an article being planned.
 * Wikipedia should not invite readers to See also something which doesn't exist and therefore cannot be seen.
 * The concept of Balanced field takeoff is unrelated to the hardness or softness of the runway or takeoff field. Therefore, if an article on soft field takeoff were to be created it would not be complementary, or related to, the article on Balanced field takeoff.  Dolphin51 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a soft field takeoff is? It doesn't sound like you do. Ariel. (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your individual points:


 * Someone reading about balanced field takeoff might be inspired to create such an article. The talk page shows many knowledgeable editors.
 * Wikipedia is not the only source of knowledge in the world. By putting that term in the see also it lets readers know about the concept and they may look it up.
 * You don't seem to know what a soft field takeoff is, it's very much related to balanced field takeoff.

PS. Thanks for posting in my talk page rather than just reverting. I will restore the link however. Ariel. (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. Please provide a brief explanation of your understanding of:
 * soft field takeoff
 * the similarity (or relationship) between SFTO and BFTO.
 * Your Talk page, or mine, would be a suitable spot for your explanation at this stage.


 * On the matter of red links in the See also section, the following advice is given at WP:REDLINK:


 * Red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, or pointed with templates such as or , since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.


 * The following advice is given at WP:LAYOUT:


 * Please refrain from adding links to pages that do not yet exist (red links). 


 * Dolphin51 (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently versed in SFTO to explain it properly, but google will help, there are tons of pages about it.

I understand your point about the policy, so how about this? We leave it for a few weeks, if someone from the page is motivated to create it, great. If not, remove it. Ariel. (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ariel.


 * If you visit Avstop you will see soft field takeoff explained as follows:


 * Takeoffs and climbs from soft fields require the use of operational techniques for getting the airplane airborne as quickly as possible to eliminate the drag caused by tall grass, soft sand, mud, snow, etc.


 * This is clearly a takeoff procedure aimed at general aviation airplanes (airplanes in the normal, utility and acrobatic categories.)


 * A balanced field takeoff is one in which the takeoff decision speed V1 causes the accelerate-stop distance and the one-engine-inoperative takeoff distance to be the same. Accelerate-stop distance and one-engine-inoperative takeoff distance are takeoff performance information that is only available for airplanes in the transport and commuter categories, such as Boeings, Airbuses, Learjets, Beech 1900D etc.  If a transport category airplane leaves the pavement and ends up in soft field it usually requires one or two tugs to tow it back onto the pavement.  SFTO and BFTO apply to different classes of airplane and so are unrelated.


 * WP:LAYOUT says please refrain from adding links to pages that do not yet exist (red links). I disagree that leaving your red link in See also is an appropriate way to invite others to write an article about SFTO.  The appropriate way is to make a request at WP:REQUEST.  If you still feel that an article on SFTO is warranted, please either raise a formal request, or add some explanatory text about SFTO, including a red link, at an appropriate place in one of the existing articles about a type of takeoff.


 * Existing articles about types of takeoff and landing are all listed at Category:Types of takeoff and landing


 * Thanks for your efforts to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RD/Science text restored
Pah! That's nothing. I once managed (and to this day I have no idea what I did) to delete some 15% of an RD page inadvertently. I do wonder if the "edit conflict" detection occasionally has a blonde moment. Thanks for the restore - no fault to The High Fin Sperm Whale. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I threw out my father's popcorn
Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to say...
I thought it was a nicely written answer you gave here - and the advice you prefaced it with was good stuff, sensitive and thoughtful. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

88.104.85.64
That IP is a sock if a permanently banned user. Banned users are not allowed to post, regardless of the alleged quality of their posting. That's what "banned" means. If they want to get un-banned, there are channels they can go through to request it, although continual troll-like behavior pretty much ensures it won't ever happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

About 88.104..
I noticed that you reverted the removal of a thread from the Ref Desk that had been started by 88.104.85.64, stating that he was under a temporary ban. To clarify, that IP address belongs to a very long-term vandal, sockpuppeteer, and troll who (before he was banned) went by the name. His ban is most assuredly not temporary &mdash; at least, not in any sense that 'temporary' is employed on Wikipedia. While he dabbles in personal attacks, vandalism, and the odd threat of violence, his very favorite activity is trolling the Reference Desk. We prefer not to indulge him. (Apologies if you already were familiar with Light current's history; Tiscali UK – his ISP – recently shifted to using the 88.104.x.x IP address block; you may have been used this individual editing exclusively from 79.75 and 79.76 addresses.) Best wishes, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

more 88...
(edit conflict - tend to agree with removal - if a little dissapointed that I attempted to give an answer and have it dissapear into the ether) User:Tenofalltrades has been reverting on sight eg   I thought it a little odd at first, especially when reasonable answers have been given, but I don't argue with the wisdom of admins.. The principle is that blocked or banned users shouldn't be posting questions anyway.. I brought up the removal at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Science by the way - but forgot to link to it in my original edit summary - my mistake. Sorry.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Reply to all the above) Actually, no, I had not heard of him before, and I didn't realize he was totally banned. But I am disappointed that good answers just vanish, mainly because other people read this desk, not just the original questioner, and someone else may be interested in the question and answer. I come across interesting stuff all the time. Maybe restore the answers while leaving out his section? I'll ask on the talk page. Ariel. (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Wbgntv.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Wbgntv.gif. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New Versions of Pictures
How do I upload a new version of a picture without creating a new file?--Curtis23's Usalions 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about the hurricane track for earl, be aware it's actually on commons, so you need to click to that site first. Then click the link "Upload a new version of this file". Ariel. (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Active pfc PSU packaging.png
Thank you for uploading File:Active pfc PSU packaging.png. 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 created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mmix.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mmix.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mmix.png
Thank you for uploading File:Mmix.png. 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 created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Mmix.png. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did give a valid reason in the edit summary. So I have reverted your revision. If you want to help me with a proper copyright tag I would appreciate it. Ariel. (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you a human or a robot? I DID give a valid reason - did you not read it? Ariel. (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove image tags, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been repeatedly warned to not remove deletion tags from images. You were also advised of a possible solution of December 1, 2010 at your question. The current tag was placed by Fetchcomms on December 1, 2010 and Fetchcomms said "free media is not a valid license tag; also, you need to verify permission via OTRS" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are a robot. You certainly act like one. Anyway, I didn't mean to flag the last edit as minor. Also, I'll email the author to double check this. Ariel. (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Email sent and forwarded to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org Ariel. (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The author replied, but was quite annoyed at being contacted again. I should have gone with my instincts and never listened to you. Sigh. Ariel. (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Human Nature
What do you mean, human nature is good, not evil? How is human nature good, not evil?

According to Gary Chesterton, the Fall is one biblical doctrine that can be scientifically proven. If human nature is good, where is the evidence? One only needs to read the newspapers to see that human nature is evil, not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who Gary Chesterton is, and a google search comes up with nothing. The fall, as you call it, did not make human nature evil, it just meant that humans have to work for their bread. Take a look in the newspaper and see how often you read about heroes, or how when other people hear about a hero they want to reward him. Or how we're so upset when someone does something wrong (instead of expecting it). Or how inherently good children are - they have such a strong sense of fair play, and they just want to do good. There are some examples of evil in the world but they are few and far between. The vast vast vast majority of people are basically good and honest. Ariel. (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant Gilbert Chesterton, not Gary Chesterton.

Current Events
The portal is for news items of international importance only, and must have a source as well, per guidelines. Happy palindrome day, Passionless (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So there is no place at all for trivia on the home page? Ariel. (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you can only post trivial information on the other 3 million pages, not on the main pages.

Reviewer
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 10:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref desks
I have the right to remove personal attacks, which is exactly what that stuff was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all of it. A lot of what you removed was an actual answer to the question. So like I said: Edit it more carefully and do it again. Ariel. (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, forget it. I'll just let the personal attacks stand visible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Curses-tileset.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Curses-tileset.gif. 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) 05:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mayday-tileset.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Mayday-tileset.gif. 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) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Lemon battery, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Salt water (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) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deaf-mute
Thanks for providing a citation to information that was unsourced for 19 months. As for your comment, "you should have made at least an attempt before reverting", if you can link the policy that an editor who removes unsourced information that has been long-unsourced is required to find a source, we may have something to discuss. Otherwise, that comment was inappropriate. Cresix (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to look for sources that's fine. But before removing info you should at least make an attempt. Read: Citation needed. It says "Exercise caution". It does not say "remove the text". In other places it says unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The important word here is "challenged". That means check if the unsourced text is real. It does not mean "remove it". If you have been removing other unsourced material without checking first, then please correct your mistake and undo your removals. Ariel. (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make a couple of more comments about this nonsense, and then I'm finished here. "Citation needed" guidelines (or any other policy or guideline) do not require an editor to find a source for something than is unsourced and has been tagged as unsourced for NINETEEN MONTHS  . By any stretch of any standard on Wikipedia, nineteen months is quite sufficient amount of time for anyone who cares to provide a source. And speaking of "anyone who cares", if leaving the unsourced information was so important to you that you had to jump down my throat for removing it, then why during those 19 months did  YOU  not bother to find a source? Don't bother answering because that's a rhetorical question. You didn't bother because until I went to the trouble to challenge the information as unsourced, you didn't care. Now, I'm out of here. End of discussion. Cresix (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They also do not require an editor to start deleting correct material. You understand that your actions are harming wikipedia? You think you are doing good. You are not. Why didn't I find a source? I saw that page for the first time in my life yesterday. And you know what I did? I improved it by adding details. You know what you did? You harmed it. You should stop what you are doing. You think that the timeframe of a citation makes a difference. It doesn't. The only time it makes a difference is if you go to the talk page of the person who added the text, and ask for citation. If they don't provide one, then the time makes a difference. But on a page? Who cares how long it's been there. Do you really think everyone reads every single page on wikipedia constantly and knows exactly how long citations have been missing for?
 * You are upset because you sense you are doing the wrong thing, and you don't want to be challenged. Well, I'm here to tell you: You are wrong and you should stop. Do not remove text without checking first to see if you can find a source. Ariel. (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are upset because you sense you are doing the wrong thing, and you don't want to be challenged. Well, I'm here to tell you: You are wrong and you should stop. Do not remove text without checking first to see if you can find a source. Ariel. (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"You are upset because you sense you are doing the wrong thing": Wow, on top of being in charge of Wikipedia, you're a mindreader too! You are now officially off my watchlist. There are many more important things to do here and elsewhere than bickering about a perfectly legitimate edit. Please let me know when you have the entire encyclopedia fixed and I'll retire from editing. Cresix (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dimethylglycine Toxicology LD50
Hi I am new here and have been rocking a few boats so to speak. I have recently been commenting on this issue in regards to preparation but also about the toxicology. I just thought you might be interested in (or possibly wanting to provide some input in regards to) the comments I have raised on that issue which I see you have been involved in. I do not seem to be able to relate well with some of the other contributors (eg Plasma Physics) no matter how hard I try????? Regards--OneMadScientist (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you screwed up the Science Ref desk somehow.
I'm not sure, but it looks like you somehow (inadvertently?) deleted a huge chunk of the Science Ref desk this morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=595344241&oldid=595343888

Sadly, there were some subsequent edits, so I can't simply revert - and I don't have time to untangle it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed it shortly after. I have no idea what happened. I just clicked "Ready? Ask a new question!" and ended up with that mess. Ariel. (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Refs
For medical content we use refs as WP:MEDRS. The popular press is not suitable. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Long hair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidelock. 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) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ben Carson. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ben Carson. 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:40, 6 November 2015 (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.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tetramethyl bisphenol F


Hello, Ariel.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tetramethyl bisphenol F".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tetramethyl bisphenol F has been accepted
 Tetramethyl bisphenol F, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Tetramethyl_bisphenol_F help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Gpkp  [ u • t • c ] 17:17, 11 August 2020 (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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)