User talk:Omanlured

Welcome!
Hello, Omanlured, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TheAwesome Hwyh  16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Gerhartsreiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifetime ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Christian_Gerhartsreiter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Christian_Gerhartsreiter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome
Omanlured, welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your new articles and wanted to leave you a more personal welcome and let you know that your work is appreciated and that I hope you stick around. Please never hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. — Mainly 16:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thanks! I'll be sure to reach out!

A barnstar for you!
Aww thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it! Omanlured (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning on Ron Cutler
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information. Michepman (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sanford Capital
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Michepman (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting.

Be aware that if you have already been warned by others about non-constructive edits, you will benefit greatly hereon-in by ensuring you explain what type of edit you are making to pages. If you simply remove content without explanation (as you did here) you will find other editors will take a dim view of your actions and may start to scrutinise each one very closely. Thanks! Nick Moyes (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for letting me know. Going forward I will make sure to be more diligent about using edit summaries. To clarify, the edit that you are referring to at Karl Racine was just me adding information about Racine's successful 2018 bid for DC Attorney General. I noticed that the article only referenced his initial 2014 election but left out the fact that he was recently re-elected. I did not remove content from that article. Again, I understand that I should have used an edit summary and will ensure that this is done in the future. Omanlured (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries - thank you very much. Firstly, there's a handy trick to ensure you never forget to leave an edit summary, and that's to go to your Preferences and click the Editing Tab and put a tick in the box where it says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". If you try to save without one, you get a helpful reminder. It really is sooo useful.
 * Secondly, I believe I owe you an apology. At 2am local time (i.e. I rather late and I should have been paying more attention!), I appear to have reverted an edit of yours, and accused you of removing cited content, rather than actually adding it, as another user has pointed out at ANI. I just wan't to say I'm terribly sorry if this has caused you upset, and there appears to be a bit of an unfair 'pile on' against your edits, which I don't think was justified in this instance. I've only just got back home and have seen the ANI updates, a well as your message. I haven't gone back through all your past edits - nor do I feel I need to right now - but you should be applauded for remaining calm and polite on refuting this matter. It does you great credit, and once again, I'm sorry if my participation hasn't been as supportive as it should have been. If you ever have need of any advice or help on editing matters, feel free to visit The Teahouse where you're free to ask any editing-related questions you may have. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - No worries! It happens to everyone! I really appreciated the advice you gave about the edit summary; I've gone ahead and enabled that feature, and it looks like there a bunch of other useful tools in the same section that I'll start using soon. Omanlured (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio
Place this notice on the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material:

Copyright problem: Kahler v. Kansas
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kahler v. Kansas, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/question-heart-kahler-v-kansas/599497, 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:

It may also be necessary for the text to 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.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Kahler v. Kansas and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Kahler v. Kansas, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: 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 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Kahler v. Kansas. See Donating copyrighted materials 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 work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Kahler v. Kansas with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

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:Kahler v. Kansas 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! Michepman (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that this was a copyright violation. I will reach out to for clarification. Omanlured (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Successful write-in candidates has been nominated for discussion
Category:Successful write-in candidates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - Hi Le Deluge. Thank you for reaching out. I read your proposed nomination related to the category I created and I agree with your idea. I posted a comment at the categories for discussion page. Omanlured (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of SECURE Act of 2019 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SECURE Act of 2019 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/SECURE Act of 2019 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. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of United States House Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United States House Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop 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/United States House Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop 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. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danica Roem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Hurst ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Danica_Roem check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Danica_Roem?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Shular v. United States for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shular v. United States 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/Shular v. United States 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. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello, I'm Ost316. I noticed that you recently removed content from United States v. Briggs without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''It is inappropriate to blank pages that you did not create. Please nominate a page for deletion if you believe that it should not exist.'' Ost (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for your message. I apologize for the mistake that I made with that page. My intention was not to blank it but to remove the redirect which I believe is inappropriate. There are actually at least two cases called "United States v. Briggs"; there is one that is from 1847 which is the one that the redirect was attempting to point to, and another from 2020. I noticed this mistaken redirect when I followed a link from List of pending United States Supreme Court cases and discovered that the entry for United States v. Briggs was redirected to Taney Court -- which may have been appropriate in 2012 but is no longer so now. I hope this clarifies what I was doing; please let me know if there are any other issues or revert my subsequent edit if necessary. Omanlured (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation may be an acceptable approach, but I don't know enough about the notability of either case to determine if either is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It appears another editor disagrees with the dab approach, so further discussion is warranted. I've edited the wikilink on the pending cases page to make it clear that this is not the same case. —Ost (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for that. I don't want to edit war over this since it's a very minor issue, so I will leave the United States v. Briggs page alone. I do think your edit to the pending cases page solves the problem that I had. The 2020 case will probably get a lot more news coverage in the future once it is decided since it is on a relatively hot button issue (Sexual assault in the United States military) but for right now I think your edit solves the problem. Thanks again, Omanlured (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained page blanking on United States v. Briggs
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.
 * My edit was already reverted. Omanlured (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Willis Barnstone Translation Prize winners has been nominated for listification
Category:Willis Barnstone Translation Prize winners has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)