User talk:Heptor/Archive 2

your blanket revert of several editors contributions including at least 4 edits of mine in circumcision main  article
In labelling these precipitate four  reversions, you cite  primary sources, undue, unconstructive, and medical referencing. The WHO document is secondary source. As is the NYT. The Israeli clinical large cohort primary source supports  and assists the other secondary sources in the article section. Two are Pub Meds. The NYT article/secondary  is not required to be "med" compliant as it is describing a  dangerous religious/cultural procedure, often apparently carried out without prior notice to the parents ! Please reconsider your hasty actions or attempt a WP compliant justification for each edit on the discussion page.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Astronomical Unit
I'm not sure why you undid edits in Astronomical Unit, specifically here. The reversion doesn't seem an improvement (removed several references which are relevant and cleaning up of century abbreviations), so I undid your change. Was it a mistake? The lack of comment in the edit history leaves us without a clue as to what your motivation was. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tarl. As far as I can see the abbreviation "ua" for "Atronomical unit" is based on French "Unité astronomique" and has negligible proliferation in English. In your version of the lede it seemed to be given equal weight to the much more common "au". This is giving the abbreviation "ua" undue weight. It almost seems that that version attempts to advance the usage of "ua" for its own sake. Wikipedia is not an instrument for promoting new ideas, and writing up "ua" makes the article more confusing. H eptor   talk 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, the refernce for "ua" is outdated. It claims that 1 astronimical unit is 1.495 978 706 91 (6) × 10^11 m, while the International Astronomical Unit defines it as exactly 149,597,870,700 m. H eptor   talk 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is that "ua" is an acceptable (and standardized) abbreviation. Not all information people interact with is strict text with a language associated - it may be tables of numbers with abbreviations, it may be diagrams, which would not require the user be fluent in the language of the author. This being one of the few (or perhaps only) abbreviation which has multiple forms standardized, it's worth keeping track of the alternate forms - note that it's not just French which uses "ua", it's all romance languages. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is that very few persons prefer "ua" as abbreviation for "Astronomical Unit" in English. They repesent a fringe view, and according to WP:Undue Weight they should not be given the same representation as the majority view. In this case use of "ua" in English is so small that I don't think they deserve a mention at all. If somebody is reading and article in French or other other Romance language article, than he/she could look up the definition in that language, eg Unité_astronomique.
 * I disagree that the SI is a "fringe view". From various other comments I've seen on the talk page, it appears others consider this a meaningful abbreviation as well. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case it's a close call - "ua" is just not English. But I did google up some actual usage. So I guess it should be mentioned, as long as it is not presented as equivalent to "au". H eptor   talk 13:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homeopathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blinded (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Osteopathy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You reverted two of my edits, each proposing a tweak of the statement that I assume you found objectionable. You did not respond to the comment I placed on your talk page and all I hear from you is this notice. I do not find this to be very constructive. H eptor   talk 21:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did respond. I didn't notice, sorry. H eptor   talk 21:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Osteopathy
Please propose a name change on the talk page and get feedback before initiating a move. --Neil N  talk to me 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, did it now. H eptor   talk 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Manul ~ talk 18:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you consider my edits to that article to be in any way disruptive? <b style="color:#000040;">H</b> eptor   talk 18:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2016
Your recent editing history at Luhansk People's Republic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Irina, it was very kind of you to inform me of your wide grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As per WP:NPOV, I submitted our content dispute to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I have notified you of the fact on your talk page. The state of your your policy insight being as mentioned above, I assume that you will have no difficulties in adhering to the policies yourself; although, given the rather unconstrained style of your previous communications I feel quite enticed to remind you of other policies that may be relevant in dispute resolution, such as Assume good faith and Civility. With hopes of making the best of all possible Wikipedias, <b style="color:#000040;">H</b> eptor   talk 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for WP:3RR--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

Speedy deletion nomination of Hal Baumgarten


A tag has been placed on Hal Baumgarten, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nthep (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : <b style="color:#000040;">H</b> eptor   talk

to
 * : <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UT
 * Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK OK, thanks for reminding :=) <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 14:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my notification template
Heptor, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert/remove the section break and title you have added here. Per WP:TALKO, you are misrepresenting the context in which I issued the template (i.e., as the third warning in a series for this month). By reinventing it as being separate from the context, you appear to be intentionally trying to support the contention of 'threatening messages' left by me on your talk page and assuming bad faith on my behalf.

Whether you recall or not, we have had discussions in the past - that is, during the inception of the war and articles surrounding it where you were making WP:BOLD changes without joining in discussions on the corresponding talk pages. In your defence, you were a newbie and you willingly and actively complied with the request to follow best practice.

The fact that these types of articles fall off editors' radars, and that Axxxion's changes were not picked up on and reverted immediately makes his content changes neither valid nor consensus. Janitorial work can take time to get to. As regards your other content removed when I rolled back to reasonable consensus version, please explain what this edit summary actually means, and supply reliable sources for the population field you added to the infobox. WP:CALC is permissible (even desirable) in some articles, but A) the LPR is not a recognised entity; B) even if such an estimate were appropriate, you must be able to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'm aware of no valid census, nor any evidence that the fact that people still living there have chosen to do so because they willingly live under the auspices of LPR governance: generally, given the exodus of refugees from the war, the nothing to indicate how many people actually still live within the borders of the 'state'. In fact, there is no evidence that it is anything other than an unrecognised military state. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Hello, I'm Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to RF resonant cavity thruster seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please discuss you proposed changes on the talk page. Peaceray (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Peaceray. WP:NPV applies to legitimate scientific disagreement. It requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. See WP:PSCI for details. <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that there has been quite a bit of controversy about this & that skeptics demand extraordinary verification for extraordinary phenomena. However, there has been considerable discussion about this on the talk page, & before I reverted your edits, I did not see your participation. The fact that both the U.S. & Chinese governments are going to great lengths to test this, & that multiple tests (albeit with their own sets of problems) have reported positive results mean that we cannot dismiss the phenomena out of hand, even if we are ignorant of the how & why. As a result, I am sure that we will find flaws in the experiments or need to adjust our understanding of physics. But to simply dismiss this as fiction as you were attempting is WP:POV IMHO, particularly without participating in the WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. I know that the idea of consensus may not sit well with those who feel that this obviously violates the law of physics, but consensus is how we operate here on Wikipedia. I also know enough about science to realize that while most claims & hypotheses are disproved, there are somethings that experts doubt that turns out to be real; witness Einstein's dismissal of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance". Peaceray (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The same arguments have been used in many other pseudoscience-related topics, see for example talk:Homeopathy. It is not unusual that there are some unexplained results in the published works. They can be due to chance, errors in experiment, or outright  falsification. That is the  reason why extraordianry claims do in fact require extraordinary verification. So we have that the evidence of effectiveness are flimsy, and the claimed principle of operation counterdicts the known laws of nature. So it's pseudoscience, and it should be labeled as pseudoscience per WP policy.  <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at RF resonant cavity thruster. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please get consensus on the talk page before attempting these edits again. Peaceray (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Peaceray, your aggressive spamming of my talk page is not appreciated. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscientific topics, and participate in the discussion on the talk page of the article. <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 13:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For the benifit of uninvolved editors who are reading the above, I made two separate and distinct edits to the article in question: . After that I started a discussion on the talk page. It is unfortunate that Peaceray found my edits unconstructive, but posting abusive templates that insinuate authority on my talk page is uncalled for, constitute  POV railroading, and, more worryingly, create an superficial impression that I engaged in bad-faith editing, which I havn't.  <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Heptor, I do a lot of page patrolling & use Twinkle to notify users of what I perceive to be policy violations. I perceive that you calling the EM Drive a "fiction" to be in total disregard of the cited sources & long standing editing consensus. I believed that to be a POV violation on your part, & in reading your talk archives, I have grown to suspect that you may disregard & sometimes even remove reliable sources with which you disagree. There has been a lot of discussion about this article & a considerable WP:EDITCONSENSUS before you started to call it pseudoscience because you are of the opinion that the experimental results unequivocally violate Newton's third law of motion. In short, you do not believe NASA's experimental results, while others are slower to judgement, allowing something may be going on that we cannot yet explain.


 * I do not accept that NASA's Eagleworks Laboratories are fakirs any more than I would accept moon landing conspiracy theories.


 * I am already familiar with WP:PSCI largely through some editing I have done on WikiProject Medicine articles, which are governed by the stricter WP:MEDRS. If & when we see an explanation that discounts the EM Drive results, then it will be incumbent on us to state that. But right now we have results and no explanation either way, so it is our obligation to report the results in WP:NPOV. Period.


 * When I place warning templates, I understand they are usually not appreciated. That is not their purpose. I place them to draw attention to my perception that there was violations of policy or guidelines. I have not been dissuaded in my assessment, & thus find your accusations of POV railroading ironic. I am only responding because you challenged my actions. I do not intend to respond here further. I invite any interested editor, uninvolved or otherwise, to examine our respective edit histories before coming to any judgements in this matter.


 * Peaceray (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Peaceray. If you edited on pseudoscientific topics before, you should know that most pseodoscientific topics have at least some strange results published in seamingly legitimate fora. For Homeopathy this includes the infamous study by Jacques Benveniste, which claimed there was  water memory. It got published in Nature, but never legitimately reproduced. Your comparison of  this NASA study to the Moon Landing is painfully out of proportion. Several other publications point out possible sources of experimental error, including Snopes and Phys.org. These sources also point out that the design has no physically plausible mechanism of action (i.e. would violate the laws of physics if it worked). This is also largely parallell to the state of the art in Homeopathy and related fields. Also similar to Homeopathy, proponents of the theory suggest all kinds of explanations based on principles of nature that the mainstream physics community somehow missed out.
 * I understand that you hold the opinion you hold in good faith. Use of policy violation templates in a content dispute is generally not a good faith practice however. Heptor (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Luhansk Peoples Republic
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Lugansk People's Republic, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [EDIT] Per discussion on my own talk. Move was in good faith, not malicious. Collaborative discussions on how to improve the article are underway. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per above, page has been moved back. Please start up another move request to gain a proper consensus before moving pages that have been RfC'd before —  <font face="Ariel" color="red" size="3px">IVORK  <font face="Ariel" color="Green" size="1px">Discuss 02:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I welcome
your response to my post on the Lugansk People Republic page, so far there is none. Nor is there any valid source to support "Luhansk People Republic".Axxxion (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your patience as well as your impatience, Axxxion. Heptor (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

English language variants attached to an article, plus date format
Hi, Heptor. Just as a heads up, always open articles in the full edit view to check whether it is templated for a particular English language variant (as well as date format). In the case of Luhansk People's Republic, it is templated for EngvarB, as well as day/month/year formatting for the body and citations. See MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:RETAIN, MOS:TIES, etc. for details. The subject matter doesn't have any ties to North American English or British English, so it uses a more generic form of spelling (which includes "colour", "labour", "-ise" endings in favour of "ize" endings.

If it isn't templated for any particular form of English, it's best to go back to its earliest history and check to see whether it was written in an obvious variant in the first place. If so, MOS:RETAIN should be adhered to. Cheers, and keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! MOS:ENGVAR was a good read. By the way, are "-our", "-ise" endings more generic? I thought they were British? Heptor (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UT

MH17
DSB listed 9 war zones in 2014 where airspace above 10 km wasn't closed. Russia smuggled the Buk into Ukraine at night July 17. Unconfirmed sightings were reported on social media in midday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.73.200 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comment. The fact that you mention has been discussed in Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17, and you are most welcome to participate in that discussion. Discussing the article content on a user's talk page is somewhat misplaced, since such discussions should be open for other editors who may want to participate. Heptor (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
About this:

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually write that comment, but from a talk page is grossly inappropriate. Heptor (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is entirely appropriate under WP:TALKNO, but other editors may disagree, as in this case it was just hidden instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, truly
Avout this, there is no "freedom of speech" in Wikipedia. Editing here is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but it is a privilege that is dependent on following the policies and guidelines.

If you continue to abuse your editing privileges to give opinions, you will find your editing privileges restricted or removed.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

EM drive
I'm using the term "known laws of physics" deliberately. While we have a very. very good model of the physical universe in the form of the Standard Model, it is not definitely the be-all and end-all of knowledge; there may be extra physical laws to add in the future, or some of the existing physical laws may turn out to be special cases of more general laws. (However, none of this should be taken providing a get-out for the EM drive claims; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's no sign that the observed EM drive measurements are due to anything but experimental artifacts.) -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s a complicated debate, I’ll give you that. I also considered to add the word “known” in that place. For me “known laws of physics” just rolls off a bit more smoothly. Still, it also seems to be unnecessarily defensive, directing the reader to speculate if unknown laws of physics could perhaps make the EM drive work after all; this is unnecessary because any kind of half-cooked shenanigans could in principle turn out to work due to unknown laws of physics. So that’s why I thought it better not to have it, but I respect your opinion if you disagree. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Condescending tone while you were wrong
Please don't use such a condescending tone to me or any other Wikipedia editor as you did here. By the way, the/my edit you revered there had nothing to do with POV; but with the English Wikipedia policy to use common English names & for consistency on using names throughout Wikipedia and inside Wikipedia articles. Now the article on Luhansk People's Republic uses two different spellings of "Luhansk"; that looks just daft and makes the complete article look inconsistent. Besides on the talkpage Talk:Luhansk People's Republic the only one who agreed that both spellings are correct seems to be you and maybe one other editor; that is not a consensus. (I did not study the talkpage extensively because I rather spend time improving the article, not on talkpages.) —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  13:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit I talked about here above has already been reverted. So now the whole article uses only one spelling of "Luhansk", just like it should. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Yulia. It's quite regrettable if my comment came off as condescening. On the other hand, I have to say that your own comment here comes off as rather unfriendly and I hope this isn't your reflected intention. There is no discussion about the title of the article. I thought it would be nice if editors could use whichever spelling they preferred inside the article, but apparently there is a consensus not to do that, which I do have to follow. Heptor (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
- MrX 🖋 15:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Luhansk Article
Hello Heptor,

You seem to have taken a special interest in the Luhansk People's Republic article. I also am interested in this topic and would like to cooperate for the improvement of said article. Sorry to bother, have a wonderful day.

Flalf (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That article can certainly use an extra pair of hands. I think you are improving it, I'll be quite happy to work with you. Heptor (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Memorial to the slain officers of Berkut.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Memorial to the slain officers of Berkut.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 12:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Memorial to the slain officers of Berkut.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Memorial to the slain officers of Berkut.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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. Whpq (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

MH17
The alleged downing of An-26 that Girkin boasted about it covered in this section here but it perhaps deserves a mention in the lead too. You probably searched for "Antonov" but it's "An-26" there :) Cloud200 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, found that section now. Looks like that text got moved and not removed as I thought. I think it should be mentioned in the lead, my concern is that the text I added implies a conclusion that the rebels shot the plane by accident, and tried to cover it up. I'm not sure if there is a full agreement about this in the sources. Heptor (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked users
Can get further sanctions if they continue to post, so unless you want them to get a block I suggest stop responding to them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I see... Heptor (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLOCK the user is not allowed to edit any page in the area of their ban. As you have some sympathy with Александр Мотин I suggest you warn them, as every time I have warned them they have treated it like attacks on him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to, but the events got ahead of it. Starting to suspect I'm the only one with a job around here Heptor (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Media outlet
Quick English tip: Regarding, "outlet" can actually refer to media stations: wikt:media outlet. Stickee (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "media outlet" would have worked fine. The word "outlet" alone gave me a pause. Heptor (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homeopathy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Homeopathy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I have given a reasonably in depth review of half of the article at Talk:Homeopathy/GA2, but feel the Evidence and efficacy section is not focused enough for this to be considered a Good Article at this stage. This was brought up at the last reassessment (Good article reassessment/Homeopathy/2). I started a discussion regarding splitting out this section at Talk:Homeopathy as this is one solution. I am going to stop there for now. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homeopathy
The article Homeopathy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Homeopathy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
You are invited to join the discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. RGloucester — ☎ 17:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War → Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis
Hey Heptor, I was against the move/renaming since it was undiscussed and thus I earlier requested it be reverted back. But since two more editors appeared to be against the reverting back to the old title I dropped the issue. However, since two of the three editors (including the one who made the undiscussed move) turned out to be the same person (an apparently known indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer) then I think the whole undiscussed move was controversial. Thus reverting back to the "crisis" title may be the most appropriate action. EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)