User talk:LL221W

Please read
WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2015 (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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited December 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akatsuki. 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) 10:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Caesium Auride.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caesium Auride.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Caesium Auride.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Caesium Auride.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Planet-nine.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Planet-nine.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Radiant energy
I reverted your change to Radiant energy. The article is about electromagnetic radiation, and I'm not sure how much of the information in it is applicable to gravitational waves. I don't offhand even know whether gravitational waves carry energy. Do you? Even if they do, I think it is best to cover them in their own article.--Srleffler (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, at Radiometry. The techniques used to measure electromagnetic radiation are clearly different from those used to measure gravitational waves; they cannot be covered in the same article. Note that by policy, Wikipedia articles are organized by concept not by name. Even if measurement of gravitational waves is also called "radiometry", it's clearly a different thing from the measurement of electromagnetic waves, and should be covered in its own article.--Srleffler (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler, The information about electromagnetic waves are also fully applicable to gravitational waves, which are also measured in joules and watts. Please see gravitational wave. Also you may be interested in File:The Gravitational wave spectrum Sources and Detectors.jpg. Thank you. --LL221W (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Terminology
I'm trying to figure out what to do with the new paragraph in the terminology section. As written, it is problematic. You write that the term radiant energy "can also apply to" gravitational radiation. That sounds like an expression of personal opinion, not a statement of fact. The term either is used to refer to gravitational radiation, or it is not. If it is, the article should say so. The statement seems to imply that the first observation of gravitational radiation caused a change in terminology usage. That is an odd claim, and I find it doubtful. Scientists have been talking about gravitational waves for a long time; the first observation of them is not likely to have caused a change in terminology. The information about the masses and energies involved in the source of the first signal is not relevant to the terminology section of this article, unless you were trying to use it to justify the first sentence, in which case it would be original research.

I'm not sure how to fix this paragraph. I thought about deleting it, but I'll let it sit for a bit; maybe we can do something better with it.--Srleffler (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Including this paragraph would improve the scientific context of the article, linking back that gravitational and electromagnetic radiation are both forms of radiation including two fundamental forces, making it more easier to understand. --LL221W (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that you have a strong desire to see gravitational and electromagnetic radiation treated in an equivalent way. That doesn't address the concerns I have with this specific paragraph.--Srleffler (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add a subtitle --LL221W (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the units watts and joules implies that the term radiant energy is appropriate for this situation.--LL221W (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. We document what can be found in reliable sources. When you make a statement based on something implied by something else, you are engaging in original research, which is not allowed. The term is either being used in published sources to refer to gravitational radiation, or it is not. Whether you think the term is appropriate is not relevant. I expect the term is being used that way too, but I would like to see that documented by more than opinion and inference.--Srleffler (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about this source? https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UgggNsJhCp8C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=Gravitational+wave+radiant+energy&source=bl&ots=pvL_LiTw5y&sig=By_HN_Vh4fL6eI0oboKA19ctKNI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi80YfB_bLLAhUG9WMKHaahBaQ4FBDoAQgvMAY#v=onepage&q=gravitational%20waves%20radiant%20energy&f=false

OR


 * https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_BnfnEMifSoC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=gravitational+waves+radiant+energy&source=bl&ots=O1eV9nnKiD&sig=Ah71OYHbrG8XFk-kNNQHZl9awMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ztqv_rLLAhUW8GMKHTdpCwk4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=gravitational%20waves%20radiant%20energy&f=false
 * Yes, those are good: they establish the use of the term to refer to gravitational radiation. As I expected, they also refute the claim that the recent observation of gravitational waves caused any change in the applicability of the term to them—both sources long predate the actual observation of gravitational waves. The second source is interesting in that it is about a false observation of gravitational waves in 1972.--Srleffler (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey there, thanks for the reverts. Would you like me to delete your userpage, or leave it how it is? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please delete the user page? Thanks. --LL221W (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, just wanted to be sure. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much!!!--LL221W (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
Thank you. --LL221W (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My genuine pleasure! BushelCandle (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the consensus
What was the point in the discussion at Module talk:Location map if you're going to ignore the emerging consensus and implement the changes on each template that uses the module? This is the kind of behaviour which led to your block on your previous account and, I presume, why you abandoned that account in favour of this one. Please abide by the consensus at the discussion, and by the collaborative ethos of wikipedia. Bazj (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for a week for disruptively editing every location map data template/module that you could in order to perform an end-run around the forming consensus at Module talk:Location map that such a change is not desirable. I see no way that anyone could have considered what you did acceptable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've reblocked you since as soon as your block expired, you made the same edits that led to the block in the first place. I'd like for you to acknowledge that what you did wasn't appropriate and won't happen again before you're unblocked. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * May I please ask you a quick question, why is [[File:Locator Dot.svg]] used as the image for Template:Location map UAE?--LL221W (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of this edit. I'm not sure how that's relevant to you making even more maps look like that, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * However, I was specifically told, on Module talk:Location map that [[File:Locator Dot.svg]] would be implemented across the encyclopaedia if more maps continued it as their mark. Secondly, because I live in Sydney, Australia, I did not receive User talk:LL221W because at the time that was posted, it was well after midnight, and I was not able to revert my edits. I did not even receive a 4im warning the next morning, otherwise I would have stopped and reverted my edits as well. Because I did not receive any formal warning, so I assumed that it was OK to continue with my edits. Could you please explain the situation, because I am very confused. Thank you very much. LL221W (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I might believe that if you said it when you were first blocked, but you didn't do that. Instead, you waited out your first block, only to repeat the very same edits as soon as it expired! Also, no formal warning doesn't mean that what you're doing is okay. Finally, what said is that "if many editors were using other dots in preference to the current one in their maps – then there might be a case to change the default". He didn't say that if YOU went around changing ALL of the maps that we'd make the change. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't do that because I did not want to sound as a rebellious editor. Because I have been involved in reporting many cases of vandalism before, I thought that if I wrote that statement beforehand, I may be treated as a vandal and not trusted on this wiki. Anyways thank you for telling me that. I acknowledge my mistake, and will not be making any edits to location map templates for at least one month. LL221W (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How does reporting vandalism make you look more like a vandal? And how would making an unblock request rather than redoing the bad edits make you look more like a rebellious editor? None of what you said makes any sense. Also, I don't like that you say "for at least one month", because given your history, I fully expect that a month and a day later, you'll redo all of the edits again. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I realise that, at first blush, this may look like a case of incorrigible defiance, but might it be appropriate to garner the opinion of a previously uninvolved admin, Jackmcbarn? (LL221W has made some very productive edits and I certainly wouldn't categorise her/him as a disruptive or combative editor from which our project needs to be protected indefinitely.)

LL221W: Please make clear on this your talk page that you have learned some lessons here and will seek guidance before you are tempted to make any contentious edits along the lines of what brought these blocks... BushelCandle (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't intend for the block to last long. I just wanted to make sure that he made an unblock request rather than just waiting it out again. I have no problem with him requesting an uninvolved admin review the block via an unblock tag. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rapid and helpful response, Jack - I'll bug out now and hope you guys resolve things on a long-lasting basis... BushelCandle (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Socking
I have no idea why you decided to evade your block with instead of requesting an unblock here. --Neil N  talk to me 05:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Reconciling Legality of cannabis by country and Legal and medical status of cannabis?
Your feedback invited: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)