User talk:Cdg1072

Shakespeare authorship
Hi, could you say where "Paul Streitz argues that Oxford's 1604 death was a sham". We need to know if this is a notably theory, published in some context, or just a rather obvious - if implausible - claim to make to deal with the dating problem. Paul B 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I have moved the discussion to the relevant talk page. Paul B 12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello Cdg1072! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Lara_bran 05:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Cdg1072! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) József Eötvös (musician) -

Conflict of interest
Hello Cdg1072. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Theories of humor, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Meters (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Probable socks
I also stongly suspect that you are behind the recently reverted edits to Theories of humor by 147.126.46.147 and 147.126.46.145. You and the two IPs are all from the University of Chicago, have virtually identical editing patterns, and identical views on the article in question. You have a major conflict of intertest in this article since you are trying support your own research theory whilke attacking others, and using IPs to make some of the edits won't help. Meters (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Plausibility should be a Requirement
A theory must have some plausibility or coherence for serious consideration. Leaving the said theories as they are and allowing them a place is no different than allowing idle conversation about humor to pass for "theories." The theories in question have been shown to be either 1) gibberish, or 2) refutable by simple counterargument. To suggest that I delete them to "support my own research theory" is a defamatory accusation, and one which I rather resent. Seeing that the said weaker theories are gibberish, unsupported by any evidence, and incoherent is a judgment of common sense, not bias. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.225.46 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you resent the suggestion, and how could it defame you? I have never mentioned 108.67.225.46, posted on your talk page, or reverted any of your edits. Oh. and please don't use quotes when paraphrasing. It gives the impression that someone said or wrote something they didn't. Meters (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Theories of humor. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Meters (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Theories of humor, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Inside Jokes
but the need is not terribly "severe" -- I said the lack of mention of it is severe ... which it is, given the stature of two of the authors, the scope of the theory, and its reception. It is not evident that a currently published theory has the potential to dominate the field. -- Irrelevant strawman; domination or not, the book should be mentioned on the page. In fact, an article is now being prepared for publication, designed to discredit Professor Hurley's theory -- first: so what? There are papers opposed to all of the mentioned theories. Second: "designed to discredit"? This not the sort of language that objective scientists use. -- Jibal (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "discredit" is not a synonym for "refute", and it is absurd to claim that there are no papers that attack the various theories. In any case, it is clear that you have too much invested in this topic to be objective, and I won't waste my time on further interactions with you. -- Jibal (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, sir --please-- you wrote, "There are papers opposed to all of the mentioned theories." That was rather inaccurate. Ontic-Epistemic Theory lacks such a paper, as does Pattern Recognition Theory, and Computer Model Theory, and the major example of Benign Violation Theory (except for my article). I don't mean any personal attack against you, by saying you were in error. The rising temperature of your reaction is somewhat scary.

I don't think I exaggerated in saying there was a lack of criticism. I never called Benign Violation rubbish, or unjustly denounced the author, A. Peter McGraw. He argues as he thinks is right. I only composed a criticism using clear and syllogistic logic, which has been reviewed by many journal editors in philosophy. There can only be one true theory; yes, I claim to have it but that does not make me an arrogant madman.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're out of line Cdg1072. I've reviewed the history on this page and on both of your Talk pages, and there's no justification for calling Jibal's reaction "scary". He made some valid points and simply decided not to discuss the issue further. Your posting could also be seen as implying that Jibal called you an "arrogant madman", but as far as I can see neither he nor anyone else on Wikipedia has ever used that term (or anything remotely similar) with respect to you. Meters (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My impression -- you say that I am mistaken -- is that Jibal feels that my overall attitude is biased on the relevant issues. At the same time, I have carried on the bickering somewhat beyond reason on the following point.

Jibal did claim that all the theories of humor mentioned have had published critiques. I do not quote, but this assertion seems to me false, there are no such published critiques for several of the theories. He rightly corrected me, for saying that no theory mentioned in the article had been directly and strongly criticized in print, which I realize has been done. The more I am regarded as out of line, the less likely I suppose it is that I may be able to contribute reference to works authored by me, if no other editor opts to include them.Cdg1072 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice job avoiding the issues I raised. Please explain how Jibal's reaction is "scary". Please cite where a Wikipedian used the term "arrogant madman" with reference to you. And please don't put words in my mouth; Jibal wrote "you have too much invested in this topic to be objective." I never commented on your impression of that statement. His statement seems clear to me, and I happen to agree with it.


 * You have a self-admitted conflict of interest with this article, and editors have politely and at great length explained the problems with how you have been editing. I will review all edits made to the article by any editor, but I'm not going to get into another involved discussion with you. Meters (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I see my mistake in this instance, more clearly now. I am making an admission of error, and hope that it complies with what you expect. I was not clear on what was conveyed by Jibal's use of "objective", which I was construing too generally. If I am correct, he is referring to the idea of bias in favor of oneself, rather than bias in favor of an idea or theory per se. I apparently took him to mean only in a practical sense that I have been failing to meet obligations of being objective in the relevant matters (which I may have confused with his reference to objective science, and of course, these concepts of logical and personal bias are not unrelated). I understand if you don't consider my excuse at all mitigating, but it has taken time to become proficient in the terminology and regulations here. The fault is mine, Meters. It is impossible to avoid speaking negatively or positively about a theory if one speaks of its truth or falsehood. I wonder if that means I should abandon this account (which I know I cannot delete).Cdg1072 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a mistake in writing in these talk pages, and correct it? Or is that against a certain regulation? It seems as though one is stuck with one's words, once one hits "Save page." Someone or something keeps reverting to a previous edit. Cdg1072 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sling, and post office pickup
As you may notice above in a similarly labeled discussion, I proposed that it has not been proven (publicly) that the Depository rifle had no evidence of bottom sling mounts, which seem clearly visible in the backyard photos, since there is no other way Oswald's makeshift sling in the photos could be attached. How do LN's respond to this? Do they claim that it only looks like the sling in backyard photos is attached to the rifle underside?

However, I do not deny that Oswald could have picked up a rifle from the post office during his workday at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. As Epstein wrote in Legend (1978), he apparently picked up on March 25th the rifle he had ordered, and "brought it back to his office, where he showed it to one of his fellow employees, Jack Bowen" (Epstein 209). This should settle that question, which still seems to linger with CTs.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Do you have a proposal for a change in the article? Location (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to mention in the article that the backyard rifle does not match the TSBD and archives rifle. However, I know not what reliable source exists through which to bring that up in the article besides the unpublished work of Mr. G. Jesus (I only italicize reliable source for emphasis). If there isn't an appopriate published source, then the issue might for now be abandoned. Your question might also be directed at the individuals who raised this topic, on this page, in June, 2010. Their discussants subsequently continued, for about 10 times more text than did I (as you see above). I ought to have considered that their question was raised without a purpose in terms of changing or adding to the article text.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the interlocutors also swore: "Bullshit," and no one said a thing in protest to his language.24.136.7.211 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It indeed may LOOK like the sling is attached to the underside of the rifle in the backyard photos, since it disappears into the rifle on its way to rings on the side you can't see. The best backyard photo to see this, is the one where Oswald holds the literature in his right hand *away* from his body (CE-133C), not under the chin, as he does in in photo CE-133A (shown at right). In particular, what looks like a forward sling mount in CE-133A is really a piece of shrubbery, not visible in the CE-133C photo that didn't surface until 1977 (as some cop had it as a souvenir): . Which is why the bottom of the sling simply seems to disappear into the butt in this photo-- it's actually going past the butt to a ring on the side away from you, and the same happens at the forward sling ring mount. You can't see any sling mounts because in the M91/38 carbine, both mounts are on the left side (the shooter's left and he holds it in firing position) of the rifle. Which is why neither of them show in the backyard photo, OR the CE photo, which both both only show the rifle's right side, which is not the side with the sling rings. If you want to see what these rings actually look like on an M91/38 carbine, see HERE. That's what you're not seeing. Below is a CE (Warren Commission) photo of Oswald's Carcano with sling still attached, published by the LA Times, and you can see that the sling doesn't attach to the bottom of the rifle, but goes behind it, where you can't see how it attaches. So where does it attach? On the side you can't see.Commission Exhibit CE-139.


 * Note that the M91/38 short carbine is the only Carcano model in which you can't see any sling swivels when looking at it from the right side, since they're both on the left side of the rifle, not the bottom. Here are a bunch of different Carcanos examined by the HCSA committee, and Oswald's model, the M91/38 is second from the top. See, no swivels visible, because they're on the far side.


 * Now, as for Oswald. I don't know if he even bought a sling with the original rifle. The original leather slings would have been as old as he was (okay, made in 1940, so one year newer) and they are rare. The backyard photo shows a sling that looks light in color, as though Oswald had attached some old rope to the rifle, just after he got it. I'd have to do further research to find out. Maybe nobody knows. In any case, the rifle was found in the TSBD with a better leather sling (complete with a wide middle armpiece, which is NOT military issue) attached, since it is carried out after being found BY the sling, as per proper police procedure. . You see the sling with wide arm section in the rifle the officer holds up at the TSBD, but you don't see any swivels on this photo, either, because, again, they are on the wrong (invisible) side, when the barrel points to the viewer-right. Here is a very nice AP photo of the TSBD and its distinctive sling, and you can see it's attached on the side of the rifle you cannot see, with NO sling swivels hanging down. Again see CE-139. Okay? If you think you actually see sling swivels or rings in any backyard photo, you have a very overactive imagination. I've looked and looked, and don't see either attachment. They're on the wrong side of the rifle. S  B Harris 23:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Theories of Humor Edit
Hey, you recently gave my book a one star review because of a wikipedia edit. I understand that what I did was wrong, and I don't plan on doing it again, but can you please remove the one-star review? My sales have stopped because of your review.

I'll never put a wikipedia edit again, and if I do, you can always give me another bad review. Just please, remove the last one. 63.143.246.49 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the 1-star reviews is by me. There's no need to so blatantly trash a book of that sort, and neither of those low reviews says much of substance.

I've accomplished enough by solving the problem of humor, and disposing of the other main theories. It has taken work, like I can hardly believe. When you put a book out and expect to sell it, be as sure as you can about it, and how seriously you take yourself. Philosophy is a tough world, even if you're right! Cdg1072 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Article creation disclosure
The above article is being drafted as of now.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I was not sure if this constitutes a true conflict of interest. I have no intention of mentioning my opinion of the topic, in the article. And I am well able to write about the other opinions from a neutral point of view. The article will not criticize those many opinions, it will only state them. So there is no substantial CIO issue in this case.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please use edit summaries. This is especially important when you are removing references and content. Recent changes patrollers may revert your changes unless you offer a good explanation. See Help:Edit summary for more information. Thanks. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14 (October 27)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

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


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_contradiction_of_Poetics_chapters_13_and_14 Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_contradiction_of_Poetics_chapters_13_and_14 reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:David Gontar concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:David Gontar, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you are clearly mistaken. There are no sources on those pages for thousands of birthdates, deathdates and other events. Cdg1072 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I see now what you mean. Cdg1072 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks Cdg1072 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:David Gontar


Hello, Cdg1072. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "David Gontar".

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! Lapablo (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Change of fortune paradox (March 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiAviator was:

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


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Change of fortune paradox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Change of fortune paradox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiAviator&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiAviator (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Change of fortune paradox (March 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Change of fortune paradox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Change of fortune paradox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Change of fortune paradox (April 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Change of fortune paradox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Change of fortune paradox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Change of fortune paradox (May 3)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Sam-2727 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't for hosting essays, personal opinions, or original research. You've been given some chances to make this into a neutrally written article, but haven't. I would encourage you to find a topic that you're able to write in a more neutral tone.

Sam-2727 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Change of fortune paradox has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Change of fortune paradox. Thanks! Sam-2727 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Metabasis paradox has been accepted
 Metabasis paradox, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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=Metabasis_paradox 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! Nightenbelle (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Theories of humor while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll log in next time. They were only typo edits. Cdg1072 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong and User: Meters's warning is nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Editing_while_logged_out ... there's nothing there against editing "in the same setting", just about being deceptive, which of course you weren't. -- Jibal (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * user:Jibal, what are you talking about? This is the generic (and only) warning that a user is possibly exposing his location by using an IP rather than his named account. There's no claim that the particular edits here were problematic.
 * You might want rethink dropping in to comment on things (and stale things at that) that you don't know about. Note that this user has a conflict of interest in this article, and has in the past used IPs to make major edits to this article. Meters (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I need to rethink here (but someone ought to rethink the generic warning, which contains a warning about a block that doesn't square with the current policy). I'm well aware of the user's history, as searching for my ID on this page indicates. Anyway, unlike so many, I don't live here at Wikipedia, my comment was a one-off, and it doesn't warrant further discussion, so I'm out of here. -- Jibal (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to reword that. It seems to me that the generic warning contains a warning about a block that doesn't square with the current policy. I have no argument with the alert about exposing one's location. Anyway, I will refrain from further stale responses ... you're right to call me out on that. -- Jibal (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, I'm FDW777. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gary Lightbody, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2021 (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)

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Victor Atkins
Hello, Cdg1072. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Victor Atkins, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aloha Airlines Flight 243, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also, changing "pressurization" to "pressurisation" appears to violate WP:ENGVAR. DonIago (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Victor Atkins


Hello, Cdg1072. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Victor Atkins".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)