User talk:Edwardtbabinski

License tagging
All images I contribute to the Wikipedia should be originals and/or modified for purpose of legal distribution and listed under

Regarding - since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links on talk pages will not alter search engine results. Therefore, there is no need to remove them from talk pages unless they are dangerous or otherwise disruptive. JoshuaZ 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[level 2 spam warning removed] – Qxz 03:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks – Qxz 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty with Comprehension
I've removed the other commercial links you've noted and which I hadn't noticed before. Thanks!. Links leading to pages giving no information and doing nothing but offer services (even when they are free) or doing some form of self-promotion are also routinely removed from Wikipedia. --AlainV 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But the links I provided were not commercial, and I would appreciate those restored. I am looking into the growing disillusionment with the notable immaturity of editors on Wikipedia.

This is hilarious.


 * launching a more mature community under a new charter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwardtbabinski (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

An Alternative to Wikipedia From http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2006/10/20/an-alternative-to-wikipedia


 * Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia... Since his well-publicized departure from the popular wiki project, Sanger has been one of Wikipedia's harshest critics.

I will be departing too.

It's 2:33 a.m., and your essay on European Socialism is due in a little over seven hours.

Running out of time and feeling the tinge of desperation creep up your spine like the first cruel waves of an ether binge, you surf on over to this Wikipedia people keep talking about to gather up more source material.

The heavens open with streams of online content, and the paper practically writes itself.

A week later, your professor hands the essay back to you with a giant "F" plastered across the front. Feverishly scanning the document, you come to a comment in the bibliography

"Wikipedia is not an approved information source for this class."

Shock gives way to acceptance, and despair inevitably ensues.

Does this story sound familiar? It should, because it takes place every day throughout the nation's college campuses. Many students are turning to Wikipedia for reference purposes, and finding out the hard way that academia at large refuses to acknowledge the site as a credible information resource.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, is looking to change all that.

Since his well-publicized departure from the popular wiki project, Sanger has been one of Wikipedia's harshest critics. In a press release on Tuesday, he announced a new wiki project aimed at providing the online community with a reliable, accredited reference source.

The new project is entitled the Citizen's Compendium, or Citizendium for short.

Citizendium will initially mirror Wikipedia's content, but Sanger plans to build upon that knowledge base by enlisting the services of expert editors and contributors in an effort to surpass Wikipedia in terms of accuracy and reliability of information.

Sanger comments on the endeavor, "By engaging expert editors, eliminating anonymous contribution, and launching a more mature community under a new charter, a much broader and more influential group of people and institutions will be able to improve upon Wikipedia's extremely useful, but often uneven work. The result will be not only enormous and free, but reliable."

Potentially interested contributors can sign up here. More information on testing, content and the project's scope can be found in the press release.

Tags: Citizendium, Wikipedia

Helping editors to properly define and identify a "Commercial Link"
To better clarify this issue, websites such as the commercial cybersquatter link - http://yoursite.com/favicon.ico which is displayed right in the midst of Favicon - at the top of the page it reads "e-commerce", how much more blatant can the definition of "commercial" be? And http://www.match.com/ which charge fees for use of their services, are "commercial" links, but on numerous occasions certain editors have either overlooked or failed to make such a simple distinction.

I've noticed many of the articles I've created, contributed to or checked over, seem to have been vandalised more than I remember occuring in the past. Admins obviously cannot keep up with the problem. One article I repaired, had escaped attention for at least three days. Since some people insist on driving away legitimate contributors, this is to be expected, and should only expect the problem to become worse in the future. This includes the growing sentiment which has been becoming more and more prevalent around the web, e.g., simply Google Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sharon Mooney Updated, 18 February 2007, 17:13 Eastern


 * That's nice. &brvbar; Reisio 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No sir, you're quite wrong. That's the truth. Do you want a link to a forum where the users refused to accept information from Wikipedia due to its growing "reputation" as an unreliable source?

Here, I will provide it to you pro bono http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3819

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius ''Quote: See I want to avoid Wikipedia... and the damn shame is that most of what is written about Arius or Arianism to date is from the opposite point of view so of course it will be 'heretical'. Is there any non-biased sources out there?

Another user states... ''Here's a collection of articles (which does include wiki)... perhaps you can at least find a proper direction within.... http://www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/who/a/arius/''

Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons.

However, I have often witnessed incoming links to various articles I've researched and composed for the web and mine are regarded as having reputation as a credible source, but Wikipedia shall not have the pleasure of further contributions from myself.

Name - Amelia Fleming, PhD Location - Carlow, Ireland http://www.carlowcollegechristology.blogspot.com/

The only question remains, why have I wasted such an incredible amount of time, on such a wee tiny little troll? Posted by Sharon Mooney 18 February 2007

Wikipedia alternative aims to be "PBS of the Web"
Digital Universe Home Page http://www.digitaluniverse.net/portal/home

By Daniel Terdiman, CNET News.com Tuesday, December 20 2005 11:19 AM

By providing a service they're calling "the PBS of the Web," the Digital Universe team hopes to create a new era of free and open access to wide swaths of information on virtually any topic.

"The vision of the Digital Universe is to essentially provide an ad-free alternative to the likes of AOL and Yahoo on the Internet," said Firmage. "Instead of building it through Web robots, we're building it through a web of experts at hundreds of institutions throughout the world."

Their idea is particularly timely given recent questions about Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility. A frequently raised criticism of the constantly growing repository of information has been that the millions of articles created by a worldwide community of contributors are not verified by experts.

Of course, that has always been Wikipedia's modus operandi--that its articles are written and vetted by its community, not by an elite corps of Ph.D.s. Yet there are some who feel that while the site has a satisfying populist appeal, and may be on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to accuracy, it still suffers from a lack of true accountability.

By including articles that have been approved by experts, Digital Universe will have such reliability, its founders say.

Source: http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39299490,00.htm
 * Ask yourself what these editors accomplish, except driving legitimate contributors away to concentrate their time, energy and resources elsewhere.

Image:Venus fasciata.jpg
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Changing the background of the image does not alter the original copyright. Information on the website states clearly : "Images must not be copied for any commercial purpose or wide dissemination, including use on Web sites, leaflets or in promotional brochures. Image providers must be acknowledged against any use of their image(s). If images are copied, the name of the image provider and that it was published on the MarLIN Web site must be acknowledged." JoJan (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Angelwing revert 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Angelwing revert 01.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ja Ga talk 17:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Angelwing revert 02.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Angelwing revert 02.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ja Ga talk 17:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Abacus 01.gif
A tag has been placed on File:Abacus 01.gif, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It not a free image, derivative from a copyrighted one

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Egmontaz  ♤  talk  07:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wentletrap 01.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wentletrap 01.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Edwardtbabinski
User:Edwardtbabinski, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edwardtbabinski and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Edwardtbabinski during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Edwardtbabinski


A tag has been placed on User:Edwardtbabinski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Variable dwarf olive.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Variable dwarf olive.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Abaca plant.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Abaca plant.jpg, which you've sourced to http://encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/wiki/index.php?pagename=Abac%E1&redirectfrom=Abaca (Colliers Encyclopedia, ©1960). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lettered olive 0012.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lettered olive 0012.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lettered olive 0015.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lettered olive 0015.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Venus verrucosa.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Venus verrucosa.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Aaron high priest.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aaron high priest.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Ababdeh.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Abacus architecture.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Atlantic auger 0008.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Calico scallop 01.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Calico scallop 02.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Dolphin embryo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dolphin embryo.jpg, which you've attributed to http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-legs-hind-limb-bud-images.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Eastern turretsnail.jpg


The file File:Eastern turretsnail.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)