User talk:Palosirkka/Archive 1

Edit warring in Warzone 2100
Hello, Palosirka.

Apparently you and I are having a dispute about a change in Warzone 2100. In Wikipedia we resolve our disputes through BRD process. You made a change ( B ). I reverted that change ( R ). We have B and R. But now, instead of beginning a discussion, (carrying out D ,) you are engaged in the act edit warring.

Cease edit warring immediately and proceed per BRD. This is your first and last warning. Should you fail to comply, I will report you to noticeboard. Fleet Command (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fermentelos
Olá Palosirkka. I am confused about your post on my talk page. What exactly does "You're leaking MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 spam" actually mean? I followed your link to the compare page, and did not see anything unusual nor did looking at the article-space explain anything. Can you explain? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you not see your edit containing a long string of spam containing "MicrosoftInternetExplorer4"? Palosirkka (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay...I caught the script. Sorry about that: didn't notice until I checked the diff for the page, that you corrected. Thanks for that.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Do you know what caused that output? Seems there are quite a few other occurrences as well. Palosirkka (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From my experience, those characters occurred in the past when I copied between Internet Explorer and Word or directly from Internet Explorer into the edit window, when I copied material over for translation (Portuguese to English). Regardless, I tried to duplicate it just before writing this, and could not succeed. Its all a matter of technique, I guess. These type of errors occurred in the past, but I usually caught them. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I brought this up at the Village Pump for what it's worth as well. Palosirkka (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Electric
I see that you added a screenshot. But you removed the portal tag. Why is that? Also, your screenshot is rather simple. I may replace it with http://www.staticfreesoft.com/ScreenShotBusy.png strubin (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Space Telescope Science Data Analysis System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Verbatim (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) 11:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Something for an admin to take a look at
Is there a rule against very long repetitive copy/paste user pages? Such as this one? Palosirkka (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a rule against inappropriate use of a Talk page while blocked, which this clearly is. The page has already been reverted, so I have revoked the user's ability to edit it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Trisquel Edit
Although this information that releases before Trisquel were based on Debian unstable is believable, can you add a reference or citation to the page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisquel&oldid=496398727 Ziiike (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. That wasn't too easy to find! :) Palosirkka (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mahesh Sarmalkar
This is not blatant spam; that consists of obvious advertising, which this is not. Feel free to take it to WP:MFD, where your concerns for advertising are valid, but note that a user writing about himself and linking to his company without otherwise talking about it is not an example of "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyfree
Please note that Wikipedia does not apply maintenance tags such as notability to redirects. If you believe the topic isn't notable, you can always try nominating it for deletion at WP:RFD — but unless you're prepared to actually do so, then the redirect has to stay in place in its existing form. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, please stop removing tags from the license. It is not a neologism and such removal is wrong. Please take part in the discussion instead of acting (incorrectly) on your own. If the community comes to a consensus that the correct term should not be used I will be saddened by a failure of the wiki system but follow the decision nonetheless. I am not reverting your edit because of the 3RR rule.


 * Please, sign your messages with ~ . You're the one acting alone, there is a concensus against that. Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms, there are plenty of other places for that. Palosirkka (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to have a script that does the ~ for me, I'm not sure what happened to that.  Also, please pretending that copyfree not a commonly understood word in the world of licensing. Perhaps you should join license-discuss, license-review, or even some of the FSF lists before commenting on this topic.   Wikipedia is not the place for your personal agenda, there are plenty of other places for that. Voomoo (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears your grasp of the meaning of "consensus" is as shaky as your grasp of "neologism", Palosirkka. - Apotheon (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reversion of edits by DarkUranium claim a conflict of interest, but I see zero evidence of that. Please either address where you see evidence of a conflict of interest or refrain from imposing your own biases on Wikipedia articles. - Apotheon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Says the one with the clearest conflict of interest in this case. Don Cuan (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jaron Lanier
I'm curious where this was published. I also do not understand why you added sic especially since the addition is unsourced--Wlmg (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the original piece was published. All I can find now are snippets of it. Maybe your search-engine-fu is stronger than mine. I added sic because piracy means attacking ships, not unauthorized copying. Palosirkka (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually use Bing for hard-to-find citations. Anecedotaly I have heard piracy refer to illegal copying of intellectual property since at least the 1980s. The tertiary definition given in Websters supports this. --Wlmg (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I do realize they use the term but it's a smear term, highly loaded and thus shouldn't be accepted at face value. We are trying to maintains a neutral point of view. Palosirkka (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I warn you, Palosirkka. You are continuing to perform disputed form of edit across Wikipedia. This form of eluding consensus is not tolerated. If you do not stop, you risk being reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ARBCOM. Fleet Command (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see your message before submitting the latest changes... Take it easy. Palosirkka (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Large scale information censorship
Hello, Palosirkka

I am seeing you are engaged in large-scale information censorship, removing words like "commercial" and "shareware" whenever you see them. To put it straight, Wikipedia is not censored, meaning you are not allowed to just remove something you don't like unless a certain policy says they are forbidden. MOS:COMPUTING says they are allowed.

In multiple instances, you have called these words "pricing info", which is wrong. Pricing info concerns price itself, tax, shipping fees, subscription fees, etc. In another, you have claimed freeware article have said freeware is a pricing scheme. I checked the article and it seems quite to the contrary. But again, software license (as MOS:COMPUTING puts it) concerns a lot of things, including "#2, Cost of use (e.g. free of charge, one-time payment, subscription-based, etc.)"

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have seen that you removed sources in one instance. Please don't! If anything, we need more sources, not less. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an unorganized random collection of data. The list articles I have edited have specific fields. E.g. price information goes to price field, license info to license field, shouldn't be too complex. If you feel that some of the information I removed from a wrong field should be preserved, feel free to include it in the correct field. Calling my actions censorship borders a personal attack, please don't do so. And don't bring up unofficial essays as policy! Love Palosirkka (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever the opinion of either of you is, you, Palosirkka, are engaged in edit-warring. Please stick to WP:BRD: When someone reverted you and came to your talk page, talk to him; don't counter-revert. Don't edit-war. And I am talking to you too, Codename Lisa. You seem to have reverted twice in one article. (Admins would probably ignore that given its low magnitude, overall effect and the rest of what you did, and the gross behavior of Palosirkka but be careful not to edit war.) Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Palosirkka


 * MOS:COMPUTING is not an essay. It is a guideline, same status as that of Notability and most parts of WP:MOS. And I didn't made it a guideline. An admin did. (In fact I half-contested this status promotion but it appears admins know their jobs.) That said, edits in Wikipedia must have consensus. I see that to make your point, you had edited many lists after your point of view is disputed – even you have edited the guideline which you call "unofficial essay" to your own favor! So, please correct me if I am wrong: When you see an entire world in need of editing to match your point of view, then most probably your way does not have the consensus.


 * That said, it seems you are just seeing the words alone, not their pragmatic meaning. You see "free" and think "free (of charge)" is a comment on price. But the word "freeware" indicates that the product in question (1) is closed-source, (2) can be used and (3) shared with friends and family without restrictions and (4) installed on as many computers as there is in the world. That's four parts license and one part price info. So, is the commercial software: It indicates (1) the closed-source product (2) requires purchase of a license, (3) can only be used by the licensee, (4) can only be installed on a specified number of computers and (5) cannot be shared.


 * Last but not least, "censorship" is a personal attack outside Wikipedia, but here, it is just a reference to WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a reason to that: In Wikipedia, we face actual literal act of censorship, while in the world outside, there is millions of times unfounded allegation of censorship more than actual censorship itself. I assure you, my friend, if you assume good faith, you will find that the number of people who actually want to offend you are far less than what it might seem.


 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Lisa. I don't know how I managed to mistake that guideline as an essay, for that I'm truly sorry. I would not have edited it had I realized it's not an essay... Let's continue to discuss the actual content of my edits here. Palosirkka (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree to continue the discussion there; after all it has more visibility. As for spat, however, the place of such comments is not there. Even so, did we even have one? Well, I should not comment on myself but your message was very polite and ended with "Love" in the sig; you were careful to write " borders a personal attack" and " Please don't". I also said "if you assume good faith" but it was a general statement and it does not imply that you didn't. User:FleetCommand did have a spat and I see he has reverted a lot of your edits but I told him off. I might sometimes forget that I have previously reverted someone (or I might remember a revert and think somebody else did). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good! Since we seem to be firmly on the same page now, let's proceed with the making of the encyclopedia! Palosirkka (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568059713 your edit] to Comparison of image viewers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * |Proprietary Creative Commons Non commercial CC-BY-NC

Talkback
WCS100 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my talk page and instructed you not to use my talk page for an article related discussion any longer. I've also instructed you not to leave help templates on my talk page.  If you need help, you can leave those on your talk page.
 * As for the issue at hand, I've added two more references to the article that describe it as free and started a discussion on the talk page that you're welcome to join.
 * As for the rest of the article that you're removing the "Free" adjective from, I'll take a look at them. Your opinion on what's "free" and what's not is original thought or simply your opinion and therefore WP:OR.  You should be using secondary sources to back up your opinion.  Not attacking people on their talk page and leaving help templates that they don't need (see WP:DTTR). WCS100 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, adding the help template to a page is not meant to be used to handle your content disputes. If you had any kind of reason other than a "just because" type argument, I'd be more than happy to discuss things with you but I haven't seen anything to that affect yet. WCS100 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hercules is not "free software"
Your edit on Hercules had the comment "cat per discussion". If you'd read the discussionon the talk page, the category does not apply, since the developers object strenuously to that name. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I read the discussion... It is completely irrelevant what the developers call it. Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of its subjects. Palosirkka (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is *also* written with a NPOV. Calling it "free software" is not neutral; it supports the Stallmanite point of view. In any event, it would have been appropriate to discuss on the talk page and get consensus before resuming the controversial edits. YOu seem to have a history of not doing this. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Calling it "open source" is an OSIte POV and your POV, not neutral. Please don't resort to ad hominems. Palosirkka (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why it's not called either open source or free software. That was the consensus reached through discussion, and you're going against that consensus. As for a history of warring instead of discussing, I point to the first section of this page. Please follow the accepted process and not make a change that has caused controversy in the article without first reaching consensus on the talk page. I've avoided reverting your change again, but others probably will not. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, your edit summary, "cat per discussion", is incorrect and misleading. The discussion does not support your position. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You talk about concensus, got a link as I don't see any? Your talk page also shows that you also seem to like edit warring since we're doing this kind of detective work. Try reading the discussion before calling in your sock/meatpuppets. Palosirkka (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk about ad hominems! I have no sock/meatpuppets. And no, I don't do edit warring; if I did, we'd be past 3RR by now. In any event, you seem to be determined to push the "free software" POV, and edit war rather than discuss; this is clearly beyond my ability to reach consensus, so I'll refer this to others to resolve. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As for consensus, I'll simply point out that the article was not modified to restore the "free software" portal after the last post in that discussion. Frap apparently agreed not to replace the portal. That counts as consensus. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I call your attention to the request for dispute resolution I posted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what consensus you hope to find, besides the "consensus" you create by removing "free software" categories wherever possible. "Free" is defined by secondary sources. If every news source that writes about a product calls it free, who are we to argue? Negating the views of secondary sources clearly seems like WP:OR to me. WCS100 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Yuilop". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
RadioFan (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Response
If you see the state of the page when the project was added []; someone over-rode the disambiguation page without removing the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture for Matthew Garrett
Thanks for uploading the picture to the Matthew Garrett article. I actually had a tab open to Flickr after searching for good free images and I was planning to upload that exact picture. It was pretty surprising to go back to the article and see it there already! You rock! :) — m a k o ๛  18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Information Commons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Boyle (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) 08:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Palosirkka (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

HTTPS Everywhere
I made this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HTTPS Everywhere - can it be made into a real article? --110.20.243.197 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks very good to me! Nice work. Palosirkka (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enclosure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Boyle (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) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Palosirkka (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Source-available" is not "open source"
Hi.

I am calling about revision #629682367 of Template:Infobox OS/doc in which you removed "source-available" because you have noticed that it redirects to Open-source software article.

Actually, source-available redirects to. It cannot have its own article yet, but can have a section in a related article, which happens to be "Open-source software".

Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ubuntu (operating system). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ubuntu (operating system). ''The source does not support the addition you're making. There's a discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system). Feel free to offer your proof, which isn't present in that link to the Ubuntu site.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ref name problem on Cascade Falls Regional Park
thanks for adding the pic, but your refname didn't work, after the 2nd usage the page shows blank, with no cats.....was sure if just adding would do the trick as I don't use refname much myself. If you live in the area and have GPS on your phone, please go back and take a reading, as regional parks and this particular waterfall aren't in BC Names where I'd normally go for cites; Cascade Creek's BC Names/CGDNB coords are for that creek's mouth into the main/flooded arm of Stave Lake, which is a few miles away.Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me. The funny thing is I did do a preview but didn't notice anything was amiss... Should now be fixed. Indeed just closing the tag did the trick (adding a single /). That was not my image, too bad if it's mislabeled. Cute images are good but it would make them so much more valuable if they had proper metadata. Palosirkka (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ring VOIP logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Ring VOIP logo.svg. 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, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One off help please
Hi!

I read your article on uploading photos but I'm a complete new and can't get it. I have set up a Wikipedia account to add a photo I took today of Livingstone's fruit bats at Bristol Zoo, as it's a real beauty and I own the copyright.

Could you please help me upload it just this once?

Rae Rlbdurrant (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there Rlbdurrant! If you're the copyright holder I'll be glad to help you. If you're willing to place the photo under a free license it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and thus easily shared between various different language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Of course if you give it a free license anybody can use the image (within the license limits). You might want to read about the different licenses a bit if you're not familiar with them. Commons however only accepts great licenses, so basically any will do nicely. Try it and if there should be some glitch we'll see what we can do. Palosirkka (talk) 07:13, 29 September 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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rocky mountain institute logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Rocky mountain institute 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm FoCuSandLeArN. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dubya has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists
Hi, there are hundreds of lists of names articles, they are not disambiguation pages, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Too hungry?
You have eaten too much whitespace (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dielectric&diff=865841953&oldid=863246106) and produced a math error. Please, do not remove escaped whitespace in the math mode. --Boehm (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ring VOIP logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Ring VOIP logo.svg. 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) 18:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Theremin have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

LG Chem
Hey there Palosirkka! I saw that you reverted my edit to LG Chem because the lede is supposed to be a recap of the article. I totally agree with you (following MOS:LEAD), but I don't think that the industrial accident in Visakhapatnam at one of LG Chem's subsidiary's plants is necessarily that  important to the company itself - it's not like it's going to completely bankrupt the company or cause a really major shakeup of chemical labour conditions in India. While an absolute tragedy, of course, the amount of detail that paragraph adds is irrelevant to the company itself and is fully mentioned in the "Accidents and incidents" section. In a few months once a full investigation has occurred, it might be worth mentioning in context to knock-on events, but that's for discussion then. ItsPugle (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi User:ItsPugle! As you say, it's hard to tell how important that leak will be. I'm sure the company would not want it mentioned anywhere ever but as you probably know, we don't care much about the feelings of the article subjects here. The mention in the lede might be changed but it should contain the most relevant bits. Think of it as a pointer to the accidents section. I'm just trying to follow the instructions. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps take it up at the talk page of the article. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Thanks, I understand your approach but I still think it's irrelevant to the corporation itself. I've started a conversion on the article's Talk page about this, though. ItsPugle (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Climate change deniers has been nominated for discussion
Category:Climate change deniers 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. Place Clichy (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Spamming a report
Hi. Spamming a report into tens of articles is not useful and I will therefore be reverting your additions. If you wish to add anything back, please explain what the company is actually accused of and ensure it is given due weight rather than creating a seperate section. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh hi SmartSE! The companies are accused of using forced labour, like I wrote. Do you not think forced labour is a serious accusation? Feel free to move the mentions to which ever section you deem better, like I have done when there have been suitable sections present in the article. Please stop vandalising the articles. Palosirkka (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes of course it is a serious accustion, however the source says "directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers and later on potentially abusive labour transfer programs whereas the text you added implies that this is a concious choice by the companies. My main gripe though is that you've just added it into so many articles with little consideration. At the very least, you should also be adding the company's responses to the allegations which are also given in the report. Really though, this content belongs in an article about Uyghur detention camps etc. as that is really the subject of the report and the companies are tangentially implicated through their supply chains. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you read the full article? With razor wire and watch towers? It doesn't exactly sound free to me. The companies have chosen to do business in China, with everything that entails. Nothing tangential about that. I added the report to the articles of the companies involved, where it belongs. I can add the corporate responses if you wish. Palosirkka (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Yes I'm fully aware of the plight of the Uighur. You seem more interesting in naming and shaming the companies rather than writing an encyclopedia. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly new development. You don't think the business practices of the companies belong to Wikipedia? We can read corporate propaganda from their home pages. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral 3rd party, that's what makes it useful. If you still think the additions to the company articles don't belong there, I suggest we open some kind of Request for Comments on the subject. Palosirkka (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a self published report. No RSs have been shown to be reporting this information in connection with the companies listed.  The edits should be reversed.  Springee (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, it was sloppily done. ...among them ... resulted in ...among them Criticism of Microsoft, ...among them Criticism of Google, and ...among them Nike sweatshops. Schazjmd  (talk)  14:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Springee. Here's a RS for you. Schazjmd   (talk), you know, this is a wiki. If you spot a mistake, you can fix it. Palosirkka (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits had already been reverted by the time I saw them on my watchlist. I just came here to let you know about the flaw in using in your edits.  Schazjmd   (talk)  15:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Palosirkka, that only mentions the report and a very few companies. So in most cases you still don't have even a single RS to justify inserting this report into the company articles.  In the case of Apple, VW and the other named companies we still have the question, is this WP:DUE?  Most of these are very large companies so we need more than a single reference to justify including such a report in the company's article.  This is especially true when the article doesn't suggest these companies knowingly used force labor.  If I buy a VW does that mean I knowingly supported forced labor or that I was reckless about funding such practices through my purchases?  I suspect if you raise the inclusion of this material at WP:NPOVN it will get shot down very quickly.  Springee (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on when that VW was built, doesn't it? The main issue I see with these edits is their sloppiness, the source is reliable in context and does appear DUE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's Forbes about the report, including the full list. Palosirkka (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:FORBES - that's not Forbes but a self-published summary of the report and is therefore not a reliable source (by WP definitions). SmartSE (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry about that. Here's ZDNet listing 13 tech companies with their replies. Reuters, Washington post, Sydney morning herald, Extremetech Palosirkka (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those mentions are provide sufficient WEIGHT to include on the company articles. In any case where you think the case is strong I would suggest starting a talk page discussion proposing the content.  Do keep in mind that all of the additions have been rejected at least once so the correct course of action per WP:BRD is to start the talk page discussions, propose the changes and see if consensus supports inclusion.  I would note that it's hard to see this paper having WEIGHT if it doesn't have sufficient weight for inclusion on the think tank's article.  Springee (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it common for a government publication such as this, noticed as related coverage here while accessing the first article included in the response above, to mention implications without elaborating on the sources? I would think that there could be some significance to this respectively to the lack thereof, however not in order to neutralise the allegations but due to the political conflict between the two countries. lmaxmai, 18 September 2020

Unconstructive edit
What was the point of this edit? Your edit summary was Fix duplicate ref names – You can help! but you simply removed the name of a reference that was not a duplicate of anything. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi RexxS. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's "unconstructive"... Just as described on the page linked in my edit summary, the problem I fixed (and you reinstated) was there were named refs with different content breaking the refs. Search for the word "error:" in the revisions before and after my edit. Also notice the same problematic ref "MSCBSReport" was later refixed by Whywhenwhohow. It's good to ask if you don't understand but don't accuse and preferably discuss before you revert next time. --Palosirkka (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what you meant to say:
 * Even though you checked that the name "MSCBSReport" only appeared once in the wiki-text of the article, there is a table transcluded that contains a reference with the same name as one used in the article.
 * See? it's not so difficult. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You sound like you could use a wiki holiday RexxS. --Palosirkka (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly could. Are you volunteering to pick up the slack on COVID-19 for me? --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You sound like you could use a wiki holiday RexxS. --Palosirkka (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly could. Are you volunteering to pick up the slack on COVID-19 for me? --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly could. Are you volunteering to pick up the slack on COVID-19 for me? --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Strage degli Innocenti" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Strage degli Innocenti. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories
Recently you have tried to remove a category from several articles by deleting the word "free" from the category name, most recently here. Unfortunately, your method of simply deleting the word "free" often left a nonexistent category, which other editors then need to remove. Per MOS:CATORDER, "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." Please don't make extra work for other editors; find a better way to accomplish your goal that does not leave the article in a nonexistent category. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"“datr cookie”" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect “datr cookie”. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Spruce Text List" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Spruce Text List. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Solar Foods
Hello Palosirkka! I saw you've edited the article so could you give your thoughts about it here? Thank you! Jjanhone (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:FOSS
I saw your knowledge on the Veracrypt article and respect your knowledge and care about FOSS topics.

If you would be open to this idea we could talk here, via email or on IRC. We have plenty of work on FOSS topics. GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 07:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Humorous" pic
I'm not sure what your intention was with. If humor was intended (as suggested by your edit summary), this is not the place for it. I have reverted your edit, but feel free to add a more serious image (with a serious caption) or otherwise one that is unambiguously more pertinent to the section. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Palosirkka, I liked your picture and I found it funny! I guess there are too many sour minded editors on WP...( I came here because you thanked me for some edits on National Bank of Haiti and we never crossed paths before) WP would be a better place with more humor!--Wuerzele (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) I think some people confuse serious with lacking humor. Keep up the good work amigo! --Palosirkka (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gstatic.com


A tag has been placed on Gstatic.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gstatic.com


A tag has been placed on Gstatic.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 24. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  11:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Stifle, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Londongrad
I've started a discussion about Londongrad term meaning on Talk:Russian money in London. Would appreciate your input as you've previously made an edit to Londongrad (disambiguation). PaulT2022 (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rocky Mountain Institute logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Rocky Mountain Institute 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) 17:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Free software Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing projects


A tag has been placed on Category:Free software Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing projects indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

help for swwiki?
Hi Palosirkka I write to you because you edited on :en:Help:A quick guide to templates. Excuse if this is bothering you. I am Ingo (Kipala https://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtumiaji:Kipala) from swwiki and am looking for someone who can help us with templates. Swahili Wikipedia presently has nobody who is really fit in template building. At the moment we need some for our maintenance where we can add variable instructions to pages. I appreciate if you have time to react Kipala (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2022 (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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Hello, Palosirkka. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)