User talk:Lapsus Linguae

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

There, now you have one of those for this talk page too. :)

There's no way to merge contribution histories that I know of... The best thing to do, from what I've seen, is just to put a note on your talk page that you used to contribute as the IP with a link to its contributions, saying people can find your past contributions there.

Hope that helps, Bushytails 18:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC).


 * Thanks Bushytails. No worries about merging contribution histories. --Craig 19:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome and Hello!
Welcome! I saw your note on Busytails page while I was reviewing his RfA. I'm glad you have joined the project, and it looks like you have the makings of a great contributor! It's nice to see someone new who is making a concerted effort to learn the ways of the community while new, too many people wander on here and just start doing whatever, and it's a real challenge to try and reign them in. I encourage you to be bold, contribute strongly, and have fun! If there is ever anything I can do for you or any questions you may have, feel free to contact me, through e-mail or my talk page! Best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your nice note. Have just spent some time (too much time!) having my eyes crossed at the footnotes and cite sources pages, so I am learning slowly. --Craig 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: User page vandalism
No worries! Hope I didn't interrupt your train of thought. Wow, it only took you a few days of being registered to get your first user page vandalism... you must be doing something right :-) it took me a bit longer than that... PS. you might want to put a link to your talk page in your sig so people can go straight to your talk page. PPS. Welcome! — deanos }{ Ł }{ 14:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, nothing interrupted. I'm editing in a local text editor anyway, but the flurry of vandalisms meant it got put on the back burner anyway. And yes, I'm rather proud of my rocketing to fame in only four days. :) Thanks for the suggestion about the talk link. It's on my list of things to figure out. --Craig 15:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

!
I too enjoyed the process. Haiduc 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem
You're a relatively new user, but I can see you've already, unfortunately, become fairly familiar with vandalism. ;) Tally ho! &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 00:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not sure what's worse -- people who have nothing better to do than vandalise, or people who have better things to do than revert vandalism, but do it anyway! :) --Craig (t|c) 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Spam
In this case what concerned me was that a user affiliated with the site in question was adding dozens of links to it across Wikipedia. This was clearly promoting the site, and many of these links were misplaced or POV. If you, as a neutral observer, feel that this particular link is a valuable one, by all means replace it. - SimonP 01:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I wasn't aware of the overview as you apparently are, but I will take a closer look at the link and see if it confirms my initial belief. If I believe it's still a valid link I'll put it back, otherwise I'll leave it out. --Craig (t|c) 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not vandalism according to Wikipedia's policy.
I'm a newcomer to wikipedia. I noticed that this is a public website that minors are encouraged to access by schools and parents for doing research. The pictures can be considered pornographic by many and exposes this site to federal legal recourse. Words are one thing but the images sure will provoke a response from people who would other wise over look this article. I don't believe whatever benefit people think these pictures will add to the quality of this site outweigh the potential negative ramifications. If someone wants to see pictures of sexual acts, there is more than enogh material out there that can suit their fancy. Wikipedia should stay away from these hotzones if it wishes to avoid potential government intervention and future regulations.


 * Hi Neosmitty. Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. However, as a newcomer, you should have had a look around before taking it upon yourself to start censoring Wikipedia, something that has been tried over and over again in the past. Please have a look at the following links before continuing to remove content that others have worked hard to create, as doing so is definitely considered vandalism:


 * Five pillars
 * What Wikipedia is not, particularly Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors
 * Vandalism


 * Thanks.


 * --Craig (t|c) 05:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the enlightenment.
This website is an Adult Content website and will eventually have to obey the laws that govern such sites since there are no formal measures for monitoring the content. Simply saying that one is not responsible is not good enough. If you love this site you should protect it by not supporting this. There needs to be a wikipedia for adult material only. I also notice that this site does not register as an adult site. You only add to the demise of this great endeavor by supporting this behaviour.

But I now know that debating this with users on this site is moot. I'll go elsewhere.

Thank you.

Neosmitty 05:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I didn't write the policies, but I do agree with them so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. --Craig (t|c) 05:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert Cormack
The article does not actually meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Now, as it was a blatantly obvious hoax, I've chosen to ignore all rules and delete it anyway. But I think you should have maybe been more specific in your tagging of the article as a speedy candidate, since it definitely wasn't WP:PN. - ulayiti (talk)  13:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I re-read the criteria you are absolutely right, but in my mind it fit the dictionary definition of patent nonsense, if not the Wikipedia definition. Seems odd to me that, as you say, such a blatantly obvious hoax would have to go through some sort of drawn-out process to be deleted rather than deleted on sight, but it's only the second article I have tagged for speedy deletion. :) --Craig (t|c) 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock/Link spam
Craig, sorry about that. I was actually intending to revert another edit that was made by an anonymous IP address (203.130.195.122) early this morning that eliminated this sentence:

''The rock in the center of the dome is believed by Muslims to be the spot from which Muhammad was brought by night and from which he ascended through the heavens to God. Accompanied by the angel Gabriel, he was consulted by Moses and given the obligatory Islamic prayers before returning to earth. It is a holy place to Muslims. ''

This was the sentence I wanted to restore. Since you had eliminated the link spam after that sentence had been cut, your edit got caught up in my revert. Sorry about that! I've now restored the sentence but eliminated the link that you elmiinated. --Jfruh 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries. Thanks. :) --Craig (t|c) 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nutrilite
Not a problem, yes I think we were making our edits at the exact same time. I've become kinda hookoed on Amway articles, I guess I just thrive on controversy. :) Best,Paul Paul 15:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Rhodesia (disambiguation)
Greetings, Craig. I hope you've been well. My apologies for the lengthy delay in responding to your comments. I have done so now, though, as mentioned, I fear that until either of us tracks down decent print sources, the early timeline will remain an issue. Let me know what you think. All the best, El_C 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lengthy delay?! It has been so long since I was here (to edit) that I have forgotten wiki markup! Sorry for that. Anyway, I will go and look at the information on the talk page and see what I can see. (Now how do you sign posts again?! Oh yeah....) Craig (t|c) 06:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Walken
I flipped it; the angle is so bad, that I thought it would be better if he was at least facing the article. he was hard to photograph. Almost all the photos of him are crap. -- David  Shankbone  23:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. My curiosity has been fulfilled. --Craig (t|c) 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Affretair logo.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Affretair logo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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 Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Air Rhodesia logo.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Air Rhodesia logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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 Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority


A tag has been placed on Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.zicta.zm/Views/Publications/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. — Diannaa (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have responded to this ridiculous assertion on the article's talk page. --Craig (t|c) 18:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ZICTA logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:ZICTA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's no longer orphaned. --Craig (t|c) 07:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ZAMNET


A tag has been placed on ZAMNET, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
 * It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
 * It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I see you've realised your mistake. Thanks for reverting the vandalism. The real article is not a great one, that's for sure, but Zamnet is notable because they used to be the registry for the dot-zm ccTLD. Now they're just another registrar and an ISP, which doesn't make them that notable any more in the present. --Craig (t|c) 23:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

June 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Beall's List. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. JBL (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2023 (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.


 * Hi JBL. Thanks for engaging me. What a concept.
 * How about you start by explaining to me how my initial edit was "ridiculous"? I think that's where you should have started rather than attacking me personally in the edit summary.
 * I'm going back to revert your third revert now.
 * --Craig (t|c) 23:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is a shame that you did not take the time to familiarize yourself with WP:BRD; I hope you will do so now. The short answer to your question is that your edit is in a style that would be appropriate in an argumentative blog-post, not an encyclopedia.  I am logging off for the night, but the correct place to discuss is the article talk-page; that will give other editors a chance to weigh in.  As I mentioned, I think the source is usable on the article -- just not the way you used it (or anything particularly similar to that). --JBL (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading BRD. Your continual insistence that I do, despite the page itself stating that it's "not mandated" (I read that much), is also ridiculous in itself. I'm well able to have an adult discussion with reasonable people without reading pages and pages of rules telling me how to do so. I've managed to have very few arguments on Wikipedia in the last eighteen years, so I'd say I'm doing just fine thanks very much.
 * I've asked several times now why my original edit was "ridiculous" yet you've kept ignoring the question until we got to this point! I don't see how my edit is "argumentative". It's just a statement of fact that is *very* relevant to the article as it's a common misspelling among people who think that Canadian English uses American spellings. The article states, "Beall first became interested in predatory open-access journals ... when he started to receive numerous requests from dubious journals to serve on their editorial boards. He said that he 'immediately became fascinated because most of the e-mails contained numerous grammatical errors.'" All my edit has done is agree with Beall and pointed out a very good example in an example that was already present in the article. My edit is factually correct and not argumentative.
 * If you're not familiar with different varieties of English, here, let me help you:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English
 * Note that this has nothing to do with:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
 * I will now post a reply on the administrator's notice board, and then I will post to the article's talk page. YOU should have done the latter first instead of edit warring and running to report me hither and yon! There's probably a page you should read about that.
 * --Craig (t|c) 07:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've replied there. --Craig (t|c) 07:48, 30 June 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)