User talk:Kmhistory

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Kmhistory! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers 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!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

File:Santa Marie Antiqua Fresco.jpg
Hello. Please note that there is no need to create pages for files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The information from those image pages is automatically mirrored to all Wikipedias, so you don't need to repeat the license over here. You could however improve the Commons page and say who took that photograph. And who is santamaria? Regards, De728631 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.northeastern.edu/studyabroad/programs/the-american-institute-for-roman-culture/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC), in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC) with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC). See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:American Institute For Roman Culture (AIRC) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! MikeWazowski (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia and sent it to the permission en wikipedia dot org address a few days ago Let the OTR editors settle this and please quit this harassment. Apparently, it takes a while for the permissions editors to get through their backlog Kmhistory (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WQA
If someone has used your real name, and you have not generally used it on Wikipedia, that person has engaged in a serious breach of WP policy. You can have an admin delete the edit/edit summary and therefore delete any access of anyone else to see your real name. Furthermore, if this was an intentional act to out you, I would bring this to the administrative noticeboard for incidents, and ask that this guy get blocked.LedRush (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. When you recently edited American Institute For Roman Culture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and National Geographic (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) 10:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Your recent edits to Samuel H. Wood could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. The edit that led me to post this notice is this one. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Slander" is a word that makes us nervous. Avoid it at all costs.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was only stating the truth, not threatening anyone. I don't know this scientist. Seriously, to say that a scientist is 'self publishing' when it is evident that he/she is not is against the law in this country. It's an accusation of fraud. I'm all for free speech. It's better that I explained it....I'm not clear why anyone would be nervous of the truth? When you know better you do better and MIke's assertions that those are self-published are clearly wrong.  Kmhistory (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you don't believe that you could've used alternate wording? Civility is a policy, you know. Self-published sources don't refer to the article subject, but to "self serve" things like blogs and forums. I don't know why Mike said that and then bit you, but using those words makes us queasy.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Slander is a word, sometimes used legally but not always. With a matter this serious, it is important to be succinct. It does seem that wikipedians target science related articles, just my observation for years. You really are perceiving threat when clearly there is none . So, no, I had no plans for 'off wiki action' lol...but Mike's biting is annoying when really I've only edited one major article (wood, the scientist) and then wrote another about a non-profit that does excellent work (for over 10 years tirelessly) plus the founder. It's not like I'm even controversial. And when I go in to fix mistakes, add new or different citations to remove the tags he threatens to block me.Kmhistory (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have lots of scientist editors (ask me if you want to meet a few). Mike and I can't block you; we're not administrators. However, don't use "slander", no matter how serious, because it gives the community the wrong impression. We have guidelines, but I think Mike is wrong here. If you're really confused, see my (incomplete) guide for new users.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting crazy. Mike again inputed the self published tags for Samuel H wood without giving any reason why (as per the talk page for the article).  He ignored the talk page.  Claiming that a scientist is self-publishing is incredibly serious (especially wood, who is world famous). Mike then leaves a 'last warning' on my talk page that I will be blocked- but he isn't an admin. Is there anything that can be done? Kmhistory (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Samuel H. Wood, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read the talk page for this article Kmhistory (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, erroneously calling his edits "vandalism" or "public accusations" (please read WP:SPS again - we are not making statements about Samuel) isn't going to help either, neither is edit warring over it. With that said, though, I've told him to stop biting you and take a closer look at what he's doing.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Nomination of Darius Arya for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darius Arya 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/Darius Arya until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. EEng (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)