User talk:Qwerty Binary/archive14

hi
Acute proliferative glomerulonephritis I was interested in helping w/ the article (as its been tagged) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:University of Adelaide Dental School alumni has been nominated for discussion
Category:University of Adelaide Dental School alumni, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Melbourne Dental School alumni has been nominated for discussion
Category:Melbourne Dental School alumni, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cNhuvYHxbI9FSfz&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  11:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi S Philbrick, could you and I please work to working out how to best fill the article with content? There's really only one way to present the information from the page in question. Happy to hear other ways of doing things and what you'd recommend. :) Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is not uncommon for someone to suggest that there's only one way to make some point. That's very rarely true. In one of the rare counterexamples, a pure list of items that were not created with any sort of originality is an exception to copyright rules, but that's not what's happening here.
 * As an experiment, try reading the the source material, putting it aside for a few minutes, then write down in your own words the key points. You might have to glance back at the original material to make sure you didn't get anything wrong, but I think you'll be surprised (unless you have an edectic memory) that the words you write a quite a bit different from the original source.
 * In rare cases where the information isn't a pure list, is too long to be a suitable quote, and must be written exactly as in the original, the only recourse is to contact the copyright holder and arrange for permission. It's not easy and I doubt it applies here, but I'm trying to cover the basis.
 * For example, part of what you wrote includes a list of participating universities. The pure list without the explanatory material would not constitute a copyright violation. He did include a couple sentences" corresponding to the exact wording they are entitled to use and that's permissible, but I didn't revert the edit because of the quote or the list of universities but because the whole passage was too close to the original. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In rare cases where the information isn't a pure list, is too long to be a suitable quote, and must be written exactly as in the original, the only recourse is to contact the copyright holder and arrange for permission. It's not easy and I doubt it applies here, but I'm trying to cover the basis.
 * For example, part of what you wrote includes a list of participating universities. The pure list without the explanatory material would not constitute a copyright violation. He did include a couple sentences" corresponding to the exact wording they are entitled to use and that's permissible, but I didn't revert the edit because of the quote or the list of universities but because the whole passage was too close to the original. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, part of what you wrote includes a list of participating universities. The pure list without the explanatory material would not constitute a copyright violation. He did include a couple sentences" corresponding to the exact wording they are entitled to use and that's permissible, but I didn't revert the edit because of the quote or the list of universities but because the whole passage was too close to the original. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DCFC - iTunes Originals.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DCFC - iTunes Originals.jpg. 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) 17:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stars Cranberries.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stars Cranberries.jpg. 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) 17:45, 30 April 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)