User talk:CEngelbrecht

Commercial use of Image:FranciscoFerrerasSled.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:FranciscoFerrerasSled.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:FranciscoFerrerasSled.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:FranciscoFerrerasSled.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:PelizzariSled.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PelizzariSled.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 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Th e Su nshi ne M an  17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:OceanMenPoster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:OceanMenPoster.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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Umberto pelizzari fromRAI.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Umberto pelizzari fromRAI.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:FranciscoFerrerasAudreyMest.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FranciscoFerrerasAudreyMest.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, 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, 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 Non-free content, 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 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:FranciscoFerreras.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FranciscoFerreras.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, 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, 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 Non-free content, 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 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:AudreyMestre1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AudreyMestre1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 02:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Umberto Pelizzari07.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Umberto Pelizzari07.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Matador tvseries DR.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Matador tvseries DR.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) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The AAH is not controversial, it is generally unaccepted
You may think it should be more accepted, you may think that it is unjustly dismissed by scientists, but the important point, explicitly supported by several sources, is that it is not generally accepted. In order for a hypothesis to be controversial, it must generate discussion and debate within the scientific community. String theory is controversial. When continental drift was a new hypothesis it was controversial. Anthropogenic climate change is scientifically uncontroversial but politically controversial. The AAH merely has several prominent popularizers but minimal genuine scientific interest. I've added several sources to justify this point, please do not rephrase the sentence as it would misrepresent them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Human Origins 101, "Although the AAH gets frequent press, it is considered a just-so story by most paleoanthropologists...the AAH is not a strong or mainstream scientific hypothesis."
 * Langdon, 1997, the only peer-reviewed article to substantially dissect the AAH, "...the aquatic ape hypothesis encountered the coldest reception and received the least attention from anthropologists...[it] continues to be encountered by puzzled students who wonder why mainstream paleoanthropologists overlook it."
 * Medler, 2011, "one hypothesis from the 1980s that was never well accepted in the anthropological community proposed that we had aquatic ape progenitors leading to hairlessness and many other adaptations"
 * Trauth, 2010, "There were always alternative explanations for the evolution of hominin bipedalism discussed in science, some of them in scientific niches rather than being accepted by a wider scientific audience, but at least having inspired lively discussions over decades (e.g., the aquatic ape theory"
 * How do these sources "not apply"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are now three editors who have replaced the term "generally unaccepted" in the article's lead section, , and none besides yourself have removed it.  This is fairly clear consensus that the wording is appropriate.
 * Please also note wikipedia's policy on edit warring (which can be slow or fast) as well as the fact that you can be blocked for violating the three revert rule. In fact, you can be blocked for edit warring in general or POV-pushing - but at this point your most pressing concern would be keeping an eye on the 3RR.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history at aquatic ape hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Note that blocks can be handed out for edit warring in general, not just for violating the three revert rule; slow edit wars are still edit wars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: You are abusing the trust given to you. Your insistance on labelling this idea "generally unaccepted" in its very first sentence, which is not a Wikipedia standard for any topic, illustrates your subtle attempt at discrediting this idea as fast as bloody possible. Therefore you are not neutral and your argumentation is just exquisite nonsense. You are conducting Borgian rule to the discredit of Wikipedia. The refusal of the anthropological community to conduct any serious enquiry into this idea is fully described in the second paragraph. If you are certain that this idea is folly, it should be evident using the NPOV standard, which you are violating. If you are incapable of seeing that you violate the NPOV standard, then it is proof that you are too emotional involved in this topic.

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of semiaquatic organisms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water Snake (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) 10:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanking articles
Please do not blank articles and replace it with a POV message. Blanking articles is considered disruptive. Fringe theory articles are under discretionary sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Which part of "Discuss on talk page and get consensus per WP:BRD" didn't you understand? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Censorship claims
There are 14 uses of the words censorship, censor etc on the AAH talk page, and all by you. Across a variety of threads. What do you think that indicates? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That I currently don't know how to report users that conduct censorship, I guess.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Aquatic ape hypothesis, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Aquatic ape hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and disruption at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion warning
CEngelbrecht, a block from editing applies to the person, not just to a particular account. You are absolutely not allowed to evade your block by editing from an IP, as you did here and here, or in any other way. Please don't do that again. If you weren't a new editor, and if I weren't a softie admin, you would be under a longer block for block evasion right now. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC).
 * P.S. I now see from your contributions that you aren't new, yet from the way you act you're obviously in some sense an inexperienced Wikipedian. I'm letting you off with a warning; I hope you take it to heart. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC).

Blocked for block evasion
Apparently you didn't. You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent block evasion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 03:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC).

AAH
Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull another one.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis Discretionary Sanctions Notification
Please note that any edits you make to aquatic ape hypothesis or related articles are subject to this sanction.

jps (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Procedural block
This account, which hasn't been used since 2014, has been procedurally blocked. See User:CEngelbrecht2 for current contributions. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC).