User talk:DrKC MD

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High anion gap metabolic acidosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical care. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lipschitz domain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comparison of XML editors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Homebrew and Snap.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political punk songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Decline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis
Stop adding your own analysis to Wikipedia as you have done at List of political punk songs and Punk subculture. Such edits are a violation of WP:No original research or WP:SYNTH.

At List of political punk songs, the whole page lacked good sourcing, so it was already a dumpster fire. You added your own section about the band NOFX, asserting characteristics of the band's music that were not supported by WP:SECONDARY sourcing. And you listed a bunch of songs that you selected yourself, citing only YouTube videos. This edit was a violation of both NOR and SYNTH. At Punk subculture, you added some text about NOFX again, this time adding some poor sources such as getsongbpm.com and a blog. After that, you determined yourself that Bad Religion and NOFX were relevant to the topic, listing a lengthy song conducted by Baz. It was your own thinking that you published, telling the readers about how punk songs can be short or long. Another violation of NOR. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I don't have the time to do all of the major citation work you require at the time that I edit something, esp. when it is certainly not nearly as important as you think it is. Perhaps you might consider using the talk page of the actual article as is the norm, rather than just pick apart one person's work.
 * If you read what I wrote, you would have seen they were offered as examples, not as a definitive treatment of the source. Please take your petty harassment someplace else.  I don't know what is wrong with your life, but this is not the cause and I am certain that there are things more important for you to do than try to figure out how to harass me.
 * I suggest you review Civility and consider how and what you say as well as taking advantage of "talk" pages to do so in a proper fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs)


 * Please don't insert stuff into the middle of my talk page messages. Your entire reply can follow it.
 * I always use the article talk page to discuss matters having to do with article content. In this case, I came to your user talk page because I saw a personal problem in your edits: the tendency to do your own analysis.
 * Don't list examples that you thought of yourself. Let the WP:SECONDARY source authors do all the original research. Otherwise, you can write your own magazine articles or books, and perform all the original research you wish.
 * I'm not here to "harrass" you; I'm here to protect Wikipedia's policies which you have been violating. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Hi, DrKC_MD. You seem to be aware of the civility policy, since you advise Binksternet to read it. Binksternet has spoken civilly to you, whereas you address him mainly via personal attacks ("Please take your petty harassment someplace else", "I don't know what is wrong with your life", "I have much better things to do with my time than to deal with your personality issues"). Please read No personal attacks; if you make another one, you are likely to be blocked. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC).


 * It seems that the focus of this individual, in spite of being asked to stop doing so, was the specific removal of my contributions--after I had asked that he use the talk page to address editorial concerns my edits of multiple articles were removed. He has never used a civil tone, the best he could do was "After that, you determined yourself that Bad Religion and NOFX were relevant to the topic, listing a lengthy song conducted by Baz. It was your own thinking that you published, telling the readers about how punk songs can be short or long. Another violation of NOR."  I don't know why he has taken such offense at an example in an article, and as someone with 20+ years experience doing independent post-graduate research I am quite certain I know what independent research is and what an example of something is. To make an issue out of a simple example like this, and to berate me for it, and then to have the unmitigated gal to complain about me asking him to stop his personal attacks is the height of hypocrisy.  I think offering examples are useful, and if he knows of a better one, he could have chosen to be constructive and contributed to the quality of the article, rather than removing what I added.
 * This seemed to be a clear personal attack directed at me, and retribution for me doing nothing more than politely asking that he use the community norm of talk pages. His response to my revision was to delete not just what I had written but nearly all of an article with the justification that it was a "dumpster fire" per his judgement.  He has chosen to selectively nit pik.  To think that nobody writes without any personal insight or judgement is simply not realistic--all of use some degree of discernment when it comes time to decide what to include in an article.  Rather than doing something constructive when he found a problem, such as finding a missing source or citation, when it was something I wrote, he just used it as an excuse to delete what I did. He has adopted the most immature tone and approach, and all I did to incur his vitriol was asking that he use the talk pages rather than just delete someone else's content. I have don't anything to any of his work, but he has taken it upon himself to follow up and remove anything I have posted since then.
 * Before you threaten to block me, perhaps you might review my contributions, what he actually did, and his comments. You might even look at his past behavior, as I would be surprised if I was the only other person he has treated like this.  It isn't his job to follow everything I write and berate my contributions with comment like "Stop adding your own analysis to Wikipedia as you have done at..."  His behavior is nothing short of harassment. DrKC MD (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Women in punk rock. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop adding a band you happen to like to the article, they do NOT meet the criteria for inclusion as a featured band as has been stated in edit summaries several times. Read the criteria. The article cannot include everyone's favorite band, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Please use social media or fandom instead.'' Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2024 (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.

Second Warning - STOP edit warring on Women in punk rock. The band you keep adding does NOT meet the criteria established by consensus over the years for inclusion criteria. The Linda Lindas are not "heavy hitters with decades-long careers". They have only been active from 2018 to the present, just over five years. Just because you may happen to like the band is not a reason to continue to edit war to change the article to your own preferred version. It is strongly suggested that you self-revert, and instead follow the BRD guidance on the article talk page. Use Fandom or Social Media instead to promote your favorite band, or improve that band's WP article. The Women in punk rock article is historical, it is not the right place for promotional additions, the Linda Linda's do not fit the criteria for the article. Read the criteria. Netherzone (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Re: the Linda Lindas band - I will be removing your most recent edits on the Linda Lindas. You do not have consensus to make that bold change. Please do not continue to edit war. Per WP:BRD someone makes a Bold edit, another editor disagreed and Reverted to the status quo. If the Bold editor disagrees they have to start a Discussion on the talk page to try to gain consensus rather than reverting back to their bold edit.


 * The band does NOT meet the criteria for inclusion. The criteria is clearly stated in the nowiki-text at the top of the article (when you are in edit mode): This article is to include only female punk musicians that have articles and that are properly cited - SIGCOV in at least two or three reliable sources. The "featured" artists are those who are heavy hitters with careers several decades long or are widely known internationally and their genre is primarily punk rock, not pop punk not grunge, not alternative rock, etc. No red links, all artists must have a main article. If their career is shorter or they are lesser known, they might belong in the "Other artists" subsections. No redlinks in this subsection either. This article is NOT a list article, therefore it cannot support listing every single woman punk artist that has ever existed.


 * This criteria was decided by consensus years ago, and it has been a very stable article. The Linda Lindas obviously do not meet this criteria for this specific article. They have only been around about 5 years, not for decades (and not “heavy hitters”).


 * The Women in punk rock article is historic. If you want to create a new article on Women punk rock musicians of the 2020s, and I encourage you to do so, you are certainly free to do that, and it can include the Linda Lindas. Or you can add the Linda Lindas to the Punk rock article or List of all female bands or Women in music or Girl groups if the band meet s their criteria, or you can always improve the Linda Linda’s WP article.


 * Sorry this is so long but it seemed that you were not hearing what I was saying. I hope this clarifies matters. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not in an edit war. Someone senselessly deleted something I entered without bothering to even try and edit it or mention it on the talk page.  They made some comment of about notability and I reverted my entry, PLUS MULTIPLE SOURCES, that clearly indicate why they belong in a list even if someone who has been living under a rock is oblivious to major bands coming out in this decade. If someone takes exception, they can bring it up with the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Variety, and NPR who agree with me.  They most certainly meet Wikipedia criteria by the standard listed on the referenced site.

Wikipedia does not require bands to have decades of impact. Please confer with the actual criteria.
 * It is completely inappropriate to state I am in an Edit war when it is simply a case of reverting vandalism that someone didn't bother to even check who the band was, or they could have easily contributed to editing the content and providing the sources they were clearly obliviously about or they never would have made such a comment and just removed someone else's work. There are no other bands listed for the 2020s which isn't to mean that there are not other bands out there, I just don't have the time right now to do it justice.  Perhaps you could contribute to the article in a constructive fashion, rather than making this an issue about me and my preferences.  You may not like their music, you may object to their message, but you cannot deny the the impact and importantance that this young band has had.

DrKC MD (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have contributed to the article constructively. Netherzone (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Women in punk rock. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

''I am not a “vandal,” nor "living under a rock" nor am I some random person who does “not know who they are” nor do I not “have an ounce of insight.” Please stop making personal attacks and edit warring.

Dr.K, I have been assume good faith, yet you are not following WP:BRD - a talk page discussion should have been opened by you after your bold edits were disputed. You don’t have consensus for this highly promotional and ref-bombed content. And now are resorting to insults.

When you finally did use the talk page, your two unsigned or time stamped comments were buried among others from 2017. Thank you for starting a convo and BTW I moved them for you. But then again, you reverted me added back your preferred – and disputed – content. Not cool.

There was prior discussion and consensus on what this specific article was to include : The "featured" artists are those who are heavy hitters with careers several decades long or are widely known internationally and their genre is primarily punk rock, not pop punk not grunge, not alternative rock, etc. If their career is shorter or they are lesser known, they might belong in the "Other artists" subsections. This has kept it free from promotionalism/spam over the years. Your band has only been around 5 years, are not heavy hitters nor had a long-standing historical impact. The criteria you quote above is for general notability, for example in AfD discussions. No one is disputing the Linda Linda’s notability, this just is not the correct article to promote them. Dr.K, you have the very real option to create a new article on Women punk musicians in the 2020s and add whatever you like there.'' Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I dont think you have been fair. You are abusing the warning mechanism.
 * You ignored the multiple edits and references I added--it was not just a reversion, as you seem to assert. You have refused to accept my edits and resorted to hyperbole right off the back. Removed my subsequent edits and then claimed I was in an edit war.   Far from good faith.
 * Reverting a change ONCE after making significant edits that corrected your complaints is NOT and edit war and it is disingenuous to characterize it as such. You, and only you, raised a singular issue about notability.  You specifically cited the WP criteria, and I added the citations so you could see that you were incorrect in your assertions that they did not meet WP criteria.
 * I cited several national/international publications which attest to the HISTORIC importance of this band. Many of the other artists don't have "decades" of "heavy hitting" ==this is punk women and a neglected genre where artists rarely meet this criteria.  Most of the artists on this page would not meet your specific criteria.
 * Have you participated in a discussion on the relevance of the band on the talk page?
 * I suggest that you accept that convention of using the talk page, rather than claiming edit wars when someone reverts your arbitrary decisions. You are not acting at all like someone who is committed to improving the article, but rather nitpicking someone else's contributions.  If anyone deserves to be blocked, it is you and others who refuse to use talk pages, and who immediately claim edit wars when someone disagrees when your capricious decisions are resisted.  You are not the dictator of this site!  Use the talk page, not the deletion button, please.
 * You dont get to go complain that someone is in an edit war just because they revert your changes. DrKC MD (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Women in punk rock while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. 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. ''Please make sure you are logging in before continuing a conversation. You have been editing logged out as the Minnesota IP range Special:Contributions/2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:0/64 at the talk page of Women in punk rock following your logged-in edits made on the same talk page and also in article space.'' Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Women in punk rock. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! ''Please do not make false accusations, as you did at the RPP noticeboard accusing me of making a personal attack, and as you have done on 's talk page. I did not, whatsoever, make a personal attack. Additionally, do not add PP templates to articles when you do not have the relevant user permissions to do or erroneously accuse other editors of vandalism.'' Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of COnsole Newsreader And Emailer


A tag has been placed on COnsole Newsreader And Emailer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.courier-mta.org/cone/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This should be a software article stub. I just created it and haven't used the open source software myself.  I have contacted the project administrators for the various stubs I created and invited them to review the article and see if they cannot provide some details.  While writing about your own work is probably not the best practice, in the case of these software project, it  is probably the best way to  get some basic, accurate, information about projects that currently lack articles in spite of multiple mentions on other pages.
 * This is most certainly not a case of copy rite infringement, given the scant amount of information I put on the page would clearly meet "fair use" criteria. However, you already deleted the page and I most certainly cannot contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". when no such page exists anymore.
 * Please restore the page and if you think there is anything on the page which isnt fair use I would suggest you delete it and use the talk page to indicate what the article needs. DrKC MD (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no way for me to review this,, how can I possibly remediate it to to meet your satisfaction (i.e. add a pair of double quotes). DrKC MD (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think that saying this is the levle of behavior that would block me from contributing further is rather silly and without good faith justification. DrKC MD (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aerc


A tag has been placed on Aerc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * They were listed on a page of text mode email clients, but didn't have a page, it is a stub and will need further contribution. It probably deserves more than 30 minutes that it was given.  I don't think it meets criteria listed anyway.  Articles take time to grow from stubs sometimes and this is an absurdly short period of time. DrKC MD (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The page I created should be deleted, but the previous article is fine for publication. It is an active software project and available for use (at least in the repositories for openSUSE).  The previous article seemed brief, but well written and had more references and citations than most pages.  How do I delete the page I create, replace it with the draft one? The draft article is better, as I mentioned, than a lot of other published articles and really should have been linked to the article on text mode email clients. DrKC MD (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Aerc moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Aerc. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

NeoMutt moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to NeoMutt. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources need to be reliable and independent of the subject. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Meli email client moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Meli email client. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources need to be reliable and independent of the subject. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Text-based email client, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Crystal-structure-of-the-spinel-type-oxide.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:Crystal-structure-of-the-spinel-type-oxide.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation&#32;of https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0366317520300194-gr1_lrg.jpg and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Note - Not all Creative licenses are acceptable. Creative Commons licenses that are NC and/or ND are not compatible with Wikipedia.  See WP:free licenses for a list of acceptable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you try and find a replacement image that would fit the requirements? DrKC MD (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no way for me to even review this action--I cannot find any record of the file on WP to review the Creative Commons license that was on the work. Its a bit stiff to claim a blatant copyright violation when something was released w/ a CC license.  Perhaps a less drastic action could have been taken, e.g. allowed me time to contact the author and see if they were OK.  as it is, I just don't have time to backtrack and figure out where it came from now that all the metadata and original information seems to be missing.  I would not have uploaded it had it had any sort of copyright assertion and I am pretty sure the reason the author published it w/ creative commons license was that they wished to make a contribution to the scientific community and likely would have been OK.  I am not sure why NC would block WP use. DrKC MD (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, DrKC MD! So, the article you took it from is here; the CC licence is this one, and that is not a compatible licence in this project. As that page makes clear, and says above, not all CC licences are acceptable in this project. Specifically, although this is not a commercial organisation, consensus is that our content should be free to re-use in any way – which means that content with the NC restriction isn't hosted here. If you do contact the author of the article and he turns out to be also the author of the image, then you could perhaps ask him if he'd be prepared to upload it to Commons under a suitable licence (there's no reason to host it in Wikipedia in that case); it would then be available for anyone, anywhere, to use in any way they like. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will reach out. It is such as common electron configuration pattern that if they are not able to share, I am sure that I can do my own (nobody has figured out how to copyright where electrons hang-out) if I have time.  The core of what would be useful for people to see is pretty simple. I don't recall seeing any of this discussion, however, when I uploaded the content and filled out the Creative Commons template.  DrKC MD (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * also to note, that their use of the image was under license from here which is All Right Reserved. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Editorconfig


A tag has been placed on Editorconfig, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris talk! 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Editorconfig
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Editorconfig, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20DrKC_MD&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1220484612 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Editorconfig&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1220484612%7CEditorconfig%5D%5D Ask for help])

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks
This edit, where you accuse your opponents of vandalism, of editing as "cronies" and of tag-teaming, and of reverting "any changes that he doesn't personally approve of", defending his "pet page", being "high-handed and condescending", etcetera, is an unfair and pretty nasty attack on the good faith of fellow editors. Note my previous warning for personal attacks above. You have been blocked for 36 hours. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aerc (April 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LittlePuppers 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aerc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Aerc Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LittlePuppers&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Aerc reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LittlePuppers (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)