User talk:EnviroGranny

Regarding edits made to Assault rifle
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, EnviroGranny! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2007 Iranian seizure of British Royal Navy personnel
I don't want to start an edit war. As per my entry in the talk page of that article, I removed the hostage-related info as it's highly POV. If you're going to revert my edit to that effect, while adding additional information contrary to said entry, at least state your reason for doing so in the talk page. Thanks -Etafly 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Moves of Virginia Tech massacre
Please discuss any proposed moves on the talk page and reach consensus before implementing such a drastic change. The page is now move-protected. Consider this post a strong suggestion to start discussing. Thanks, alphachimp  17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You were engaging in an inherently disruptive activity. Please read WP:POINT. alphachimp  17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is a massacre is irrelevant. You've created an absurd mess of talk page and article redirects around the encyclopedia. alphachimp  17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not expressing an opinion about whether or not it was a massacre. I just know that it is not helpful when a single user decides that the title of a main page article must be changed without seeking consensus. It's very likely that the title will be changed, but it's clear at this point that sufficient resistance exists that consensus must be sought (WP:BRD). alphachimp  17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wasting your time. I wasn't assuming an opinion, I was getting you to stop move warring. It's disruption, plain and simple. You would have been blocked on your next page move. How many times do I have to say that before you understand it? alphachimp  01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Move of school shooting
This was school shooting originally and someone moved it to school massacre without any discussion on the talk page; it was returned to school shooting, then you moved it back to school massacre without discussing it on the talk page. Titanium Dragon 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation
I note you reverted my removal of Category:School killings in the United States from the Category:Virginia Tech massacre, and would contest your assertion that the cat is not redundant. I suppose it could come down to a definition of "school". Category:Virginia Tech massacre is already part of Category:University shootings, which I believe is sufficient and fully compliant with WP:CAT.

By my definition, a "University", although a seat of learning, is not a "school", thus it can only be included in one and not the other. However, if a Uni IS considered a school, then the Category:University shootings should belong in the Category:School killings in the United States, and there would STILL be no need for the category to further appear in Category:Virginia Tech massacre or the Virginia Tech massacre article. Ohconfucius 09:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the 'key' is U.S., which categorizes by country. EnviroGranny 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Still don't get. Get one wrong to get another detail right makes no sense. You don't seem to disagree it's not a School killing, so although it tool place in the United States, it's miscategorised. I would point out that it is included in enough other categories already which already belong to the category US, so it does not have to be that specific here;-) Category:Virginia Tech massacre belongs to the following cats: Category:2007 crimes, Category:2007 in the United States, Category:Massacres in the United States, Category:Murder-suicide, Category: School killings in the United States, Category:Spree shootings, Category:University shootings, and Category:Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (which belongs in Category: Universities and colleges in the United States by state). Do you think I'm being pedantic? Ohconfucius 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dumping
I am sorry if I mistakenly reverted your edit. I will make amends immediatly. Unfortunetly it seemed like vandalism to me when I was looking through the diff. I will report my mistake here. I will also remove my earlier message from your talk page as it is inappropriate. I hope this will not deter you from your excellent contributions to wikipedia in the future. If you would like to talk to me about anything else please do so.  AVTN  T  CVPS 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews
Can you confirm on my talk page here on Wikipedia that you are the author of this article on Wikinews? CIA Director George Tenet's memoir published ? Thank you.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just making sure, thank you! Great article btw, thanks for submitting it, however I think it needs to be re-written to get rid of the encyclopedic tone.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unjust accusation of entry removal
In short I did not remove the entry *2007 - Release date of the memoir At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA authored by George Tenet. From April 30. However, although it was not I that removed it, now you have drawn it to my attention I would say that I do not consider it an entry of sufficient importance to be recorded there, which may have been the thoughts of the editor that removed the entry along with another, perhaps after it has sold a few million copies it may be a notable book.

Kindly retract and/or direct your accusation elsewhere. --Drappel 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting, and see you have been making unjust accusations elsewhere. --Drappel 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race
Hi EnviroGranny, I have condensed the section you added to Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race into a sentence under criticisms section. The content was too detailed for such a broad article. I would have moved it over, but it appears identical to the that which you already added to Ramy Brooks. I've made sure to keep the link to that article so readers can find the info you added. Cheers, BanyanTree 07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Virginia Tech massacre
What do you mean vandalize? I did not do any such thing. 132.205.44.134 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the vandalism accusation. 132.205.44.134 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AVirginia_Tech_massacre&diff=126517978&oldid=126479893
 * -the only difference is box order, what I thought was better ordering. 132.205.44.134 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews
Thanks for adding a link to wikinews to Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi, we appreciate all the promotion we can get. Are you a regular reader of wikinews, or did you just pick up on this one by accident? --Brianmc 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great to hear we have regular readers among Wikipedians, hope you enjoy the content, it is a fun project to work on. --Brianmc 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you withdraw your WP:3O request?
Hi! I'd suggest you withdraw your request for a third opinion. First, a third opinion should be a neutrally stated request for somebody to take a look at an editing question, not a request to admonish some other user. Second, the first step in dispute resolution isn't calling in others, it's talking with your fellow editors. The fellow in question has posted a clear and reasonable explanation of his actions on the article's talk page, so I'd suggest you start there. Thanks, William Pietri 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have answered your request for a third opinion, and so will be deleting it. If you request another third opinion in the future, please make sure to follow instructions by giving a short, neutral description, not mentioning individual users, and linking to the article's talk page, not specific diffs that you are disputing. Thanks, William Pietri 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Given that you've decided I'm not neutral, I'll leave your request alone. Again, I request that you follow instructions on the WP:3O page and make it a neutral summary of the dispute, without usernames or links to individual diffs, but including a link to the talk page section. Also, new requests go at the bottom, not the top. Thanks, William Pietri 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(Spirte) Lightning
I will take on the case as an informal mediator. However, in the interests of open disclosure, I should remind you that I gave a third opinion contrary to your position. I gave it as an outside observer from the third opinion page. I have no firm position on the issue, so I do not feel it would bias the mediation. I would also recuse myself and ask for another mediator to take it up, if you feel my mediation is imbalanced. Please let me know if you would still approve of me adopting the case. Vassyana 22:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Dicklyon
EnviroGranny, on Dicklyon's page you wrote "Don't post any further comments on my talk page or I will consider it vandalism and report it as such." That's inappropriate. Talk pages are used for talking directly with an editor, and are often a better place to discuss things than an article talk page. Dicklyon's comments were a little impatient, but well within the bounds of appropriate, and certainly more moderate than your claim that his reasonable edits were "tantamount to vandalism". Before you go much further, and certainly before you start making vandalism reports, you should carefully consider WP:TEND, as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, William Pietri 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here comes the heavy mob
I am like a steam roller, squashing the sensibilities of users and crushing all beneath my wheels. For this reason I do not become involved in silly disputes escalated beyond all sense by editors who have lost their sense of proportion -  unless those editors start being rude to my friends. William Pietri is my friend, and he is a legend on Wikipedia for patience in the face of abject stupidity. You, on the other hand, appear to be a rude and uncollegiate individual who does not understand that reverting original research is not vandalism, and accusing established users like Dicklyon of vandalism is uncivil. Luckily you have just realised the error of your ways and will stop asserting ownership of your user space, and articles, and will proceed to learn really quickly from the experience. Because otherwise you may be in line for some rouge admin abuse. I have a banhammer and I'm not afraid to use it. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, that is me - session cookie issue logged me out at the crucial moment. Message is unchanged. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My God, you really are stupid, aren't you? This is not called spam, it;s called a warning.  Here's the proof: you will be able to edit again tomorrow. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to some comments in other places, there is some feeling that you may really not understand what you are doing wrong. I hope you have by now read WP:OWN, which states it exactly.  The other links in my message above are also relevant.  Your reaction to the removal of your image is completely disproportionate, accusing others of vandalism for removing it was completely inappropriate, and without a reputable authority stating that the image is a sprite, including the image violates our policy against original research.  People get things like that wrong all the time, what they do not do (unless they are looking for trouble) is start throwing their weight around when the debate goes against them.  You escalated a silly dispute beyond all sense, and that is disruptive.  You threatened other to keep off your talk page when they came to tell you there was a problem, and that is both disruptive and rude.  Oh, and it's also plain wrong because that's exactly what your talk page is for.  You have been very silly.  I hope you will not do this again.  Guy (Help!) 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ColumbiaSprite.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ColumbiaSprite.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. William Pietri 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) William Pietri 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Request for Mediation
Just making way with your request. I will mediate the dispute, but I would like for all involved parties to approve of me personally as a mediator. I suggest that you review my contributions to make this decision, and let me know so I can get started. As of now, I have not reviewed any of the facts from the dispute. I am not familiar with the article, nor with either of your arguments. Please leave your response here, I will be watching this page until the dispute is resolved. Thanks - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GeorgeTenetBook1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeTenetBook1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:KRISS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KRISS.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Andrew c 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:RamyBrooks.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RamyBrooks.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for File:GeorgeTenetBook.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GeorgeTenetBook.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan
Category:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan,, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Battle of Thermopylae (353 BC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Battle of Thermopylae (353 BC). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae (353 BC). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KRISS.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:KRISS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

KRISS.jpg
I have tagged Image:KRISS.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)