User talk:How come why not

May 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to European turtle dove has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: European turtle dove was changed by How come why not (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.912127 on 2016-05-08T00:15:42+00:00.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to European turtle dove, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You didn't just delete the hatnote; you deleted the bulk of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I accidently deleted most of the article European turtle dove. The program that I used does not support more than 5000 characters, so it deleted most of the article. But Turtle dove does not redirect here, so the hatnote should be deleted. --How come why not (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Turtle dove did redirect there before you changed it, and it redirects there again at last check. I suggest you discuss the situation and get support from other editors before creating a new page for generic turtle doves. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=719269625 your edit] to Turtle-dove may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Taxobox
 * | superordo = Telluaves expand article before enabling (messes up layout) --

Your contributed article, Turtle-dove


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Turtle-dove. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Streptopelia. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Streptopelia – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —teb728 t c 05:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Dinosaur with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That was not vandalism. Birds are dinosaurs. Many articles about dinosaurs on Wikipedia say that, including Dinosaur. So it's fine to have an image of a bird as the main image of Dinosaur. --How come why not (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My apology on the warning. There are birds below in the article. There is no need to replace the image of well-known species of extinct dinosaurs with an image of a bird. BTW: Most editors don't monitor other's talk pages. I would suggest a wp:ping. In my case, Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Dinosaur. 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 that 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2016 (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.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Under what circumstances is it "necessary" to edit war? I'm not sure you understand the guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When reverting vandalism. --How come why not (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read Edit warring again and reconsider your answer. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Main image of Dinosaur
In case you're wondering why I changed the main image of Dinosaur, the answer is because it's not right to deny that birds are dinosaurs because its the truth. I know you might say non-avian dinosaur skeletons are better, because the article is primarily about non-avian dinosaurs. Well, if it is, then it's not representing a general view of the subject. It's called ‘Dinosaur’. That means it should be about dinosaurs in general, not just non-avian dinosaurs. If you want an article about non-avian dinosaurs, than call it ‘Non-avian dinosaur’. Not ‘Dinosaur’! Don't forget that thanks to the automatic taxobox, there are many articles about birds on Wikipedia which have ‘Dinosauria’ (the scientific name for ‘dinosaur’) in them! As far as I know, all articles about birds which have automatic taxoboxes on them on the English Wikipedia have ‘Dinosauria' in their automatic taxobox! If an article about birds doesn't mention dinosaurs, than it doesn't have an automatic taxobox. Note: I would have posted this comment on Talk:Dinosaur and not here if I hadn't been blocked. --How come why not (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had not continued your edit war over the main image on the Dinosaur article, you might not be blocked! If you wish to replace the image, please get a consensus supporting your change first - the fact that multiple editors have reverted you so far means that you do not have that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, I was quite aware of the evolutionary history of birds being descendants of dinosaurs. Your repeatedly changing the main infobox photo to a bird was getting quite wp:pointy. There was, previous to your addition, images of birds in the dinosaur article. Also, given that the pigeon article is Columbiformes and not pigeons your move of Category:Columbiformes stubs to Category:Pigeon stubs was quite unnecessary and is now a mess that needs to be cleaned up. It appears that you are WP:NOTHERE Jim1138 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You sent me an email and I choose to respond here. Your email addresses only your edit warring without addressing the fact that your edits were inappropriate (most likely, deliberately so) and without addressing your abuse of the unblock process. I firmly believe it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to unblock you. --Yamla (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop emailing me. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to stop emailing me. Now I demand it. DO NOT EMAIL ME AGAIN. You are welcome to use the Unblock Ticket Request System but you are not welcome to email me again. Let me be crystal clear here, because you ignored my previous request. DO NOT EMAIL ME AGAIN. --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, any further violations and I'll remove your ability to email from Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just got an email from them. I have revoked email access for inappropriate spamming of admins. UTRS is open as the last remaining route of appeal. BethNaught (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)