User talk:Katafore

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Katafore! Thank you for your contributions. I am Acather96 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Acather96 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * As well, can I congratulate you on your great new article John Matthew Rispoli - you may want to consider nominating to be displayed on the 'Did you know' section of the main page, you can do so here. If you need a hand, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, "Stefano Pace"


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, "Stefano Pace". 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 - Stefano Pace. 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 Stefano Pace - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 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. I guess you made a mistake. Let me know if you need help. Cheers, RacconishTk 19:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article Nazzareno Camilleri--It would be great if you could also Wikify the related article Katrine Camilleri. Jipinghe (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:John Peter Portelli.gif
Please add a source for that picture. Did you take it yourself? Did you find it somewhere else where it is licensed under a Free Art License? If no source is added, the image will have to be deleted. -EmadIV (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Anthony Abela.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Anthony Abela.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:John Peter Portelli.gif
Thanks for uploading File:John Peter Portelli.gif. 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. EmadIV (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Anthony Abela.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Anthony Abela.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MGA73 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't know.

Editing of articles on philosophy in Malta
I refer to the comment of the arbitrator following you decision to refer me to Wikiquette assistance. I trust you now understand that it is one of the five founding principles of Wikipedia is that anyone is allowed to edit, no matter how highly you rate your knowledge in a particular subject or how low your opinion of others'.

As I said, I think there are serious problems with the articles you have written, mainly in that Wikipedia policies like WP:ADVERT and WP:ORIGINAL are not followed. Still, I'm ready to by prudent and cautious with my edits as I have been this far. I therefore invite you to take up discussion of the contentious points in the talk pages of the articles in question.

Regards.

Demdem (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Demdem, I need not go into discussions about matters of which I am absolutely certain, and about which you evidently don't know much. Forgive me for being so blunt. But that's the way it is.


 * You say that WP:ADVERT and WP:ORIGINAL were not followed. It is crystal clear that some of the changes you made were not, as WP:ADVERT warns, "advertisements masquerading as articles" or "references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced". Wherever this seemed to be the case, I submitted without as much as a squeak.


 * On the other hand, some items you chose to change were not in violation in any way of what WP:ORIGINAL warns about, namely "references to material for which no reliable, published sources exists". Quite the opposite, the changes you made were arbitrary (to the contrary of which reliable, published sources exist).


 * Yes, I do agree with you that you should be more prudent and cautious, especially when dealing with matters contributed by experts. Forgive me, but I do not say this because I look down on you or have a low opinion of you, or anyone else, for that matter. Nevertheless, some changes made by you to matters on which I am an expert - especially concerning Philosophy in Malta, and Manuel Dimech - cannot but be called presumptuous.


 * The Philosophy in Malta article has some 60+ articles attached to it, all original and researched from first sources by the undersigned. You must understand that, after all the work that this entails, I cannot possibly keep reviewing them every now and then to see what changes, inane or otherwise, have been made to them. I do accept the principle that everyone can change and edit at will. However, it is understood that this is done responsibly and reliably.


 * Anyway, I hope all of this gets us somewhere. Thanks. --Katafore (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to note that you choose to ignore what the arbitrator said (following a request you made) that arguments from authority are not admissible in Wikipedia. Everyone edits Wikipedia and edits anonymously and that means that, whatever our respective qualifications might be, they do not come into it.


 * I understand that you have done a lot of work. But still many Wikipedia principles have been violated. I mentioned WP:ADVERT because the articles you wrote openly promote one author (Mark Montebello), his works on the subject and his particular POV. On WP:ORIGINAL I believe your penultimate paragraph in your last comment, referring to the articles being "original and researced from first sources" by you, just about says it all.


 * Demdem (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My friend, it's not that I do not acknowledge and accept the arbitrator's advise that arguments from authority are not admissible in Wikipedia. I do understand that this alone is not enough to make a good article, especially if it is to be free from POV. Nevertheless, you will agree that improvements have to be knowledgeable. In other words, an editor has to know exactly what s/he is doing, understanding the difficulty of writing such articles, and the points of contention involved, which are never easy to resolve. However, despite your commendable interest in improving the article, you proposed that it be removed completely, which is really unfortunate.

This brings us to the question of the alleged "promotion" of just one author. In this case, considering that the only extensive publications on the subject are by the same author, it can hardly be helped to draw information primarily from that author's publications (which, incidentally, you called "of dubious quality", a qualification which might be considered a punch below the belt). Though it is probably unfortunate that only one major source of information is available with regard to the history of philosophy in Malta, this is how things stand. For the time, nothing can be done about it. Nonetheless, it does not follow that this necessarily amounts to "promotion". Of course, I need not invite you, or anyone else, to improve the article wherever possible in this regard.

Finally, I take this opportunity to ask your forgiveness if I formerly used strong words when criticising your editing. I had lost my cool a bit, which I shouldn't have. So sorry.

--Katafore (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I assure you that I know what I'm doing when I'm editing Wikipedia, I explain when I edit, I take things to the talk page. That was precisely the case with the issue of deletion: there are serious problems with this article vis-a-vis Wikipedia policies (and even more that the time) but no major consensus for deletion. Which is why I never acted beyond the comment posted and instead proceeded with edits that were explained or offered for discussion.


 * Apologies accepted. Other than that, I suggest we pursue the matter in the article's talk page.


 * Demdem (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine. --Katafore (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saviour Montebello, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paola and Rector (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) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Katafore (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saviour Montebello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collegiate (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) 08:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. --Katafore (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

June 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Emmanuel George Cefai. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are perfectly right. So sorry. I thought that the delete notice could be temporarily removed since the whole article was reworked from scratch. Nevertheless, I understand that this could create problems. On the other hand, I presume that, since modifications were now been heavily made, a reconsideration of the deletion might be undertaken. --Katafore (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to contribute to the deletion discussion it's here: Articles for deletion/Emmanuel George Cefai (2nd nomination). You can edit the article, and should if you think it might improve it and save it from deletion, but don't remove the notice until the discussion is done.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Very kind indeed. Thank you. --Katafore (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Emmanuel George Cefai (2nd nomination)
Hello Katafore. Let's keep this on-wiki, not via email. The article was deleted for lack of notability: assertions about notability were made but not proven. Such proof could consist of citations, book reviews, discussions of the subject, and none were given. In addition, claims such as "already somewhat published" don't promise much--but even if your subject were published, that in itself is not evidence of notability. After all, anyone can publish these days. What is needed is proof that the publications are noted by others. See, for instance, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You might be right. Nevertheless, I think that you were marginally less to the book in this case and rather slightly too harsh. Surely the second version could have stayed. The second article was removed without no discussion at all, which, to my mind, might be against Wikipedia practice. I suggest that the second version be reloaded, and left for further discussion and, if necessary, development. --Katafore (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There was plenty of discussion in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Emmanuel G. Cefai
Hi. According to page history, my bot didn't edit this page. It was edited by the bots: BG19bot and Yobot. --Meno25 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Emmanuel G. Cefai
Hi, I'm Robvanvee. Katafore, thanks for creating Emmanuel G. Cefai!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. ''The article is an orphan and needs additional sources. Otherwise, nice start!''

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.  Rob van  vee  16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Emmanuel G. Cefai for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emmanuel G. Cefai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Emmanuel G. Cefai until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Katafore (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)