User talk:Ranze/2013

=January=

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Benoit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Game Cube and N-Gage (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) 11:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:RhodesScholarsDecember10.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RhodesScholarsDecember10.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nici Vampire  Heart  21:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there Ranze. Judging by your response on my talk page, you appear to have misunderstood the reason I nominated File:RhodesScholarsDecember10.jpg for deletion, so I shall attempt to clarify the issue here. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which means that we attempt to use free media where possible. In certain cases, we allow non-free content, but only if said non-free content fits within very specific criteria.
 * File:RhodesScholarsDecember10.jpg is an image of two living people, both active in the area that earned them notability, in an active tag team; that is to say, a tag team whose members will be in tag team matches with each other for the forseeable future. As a result, the image clearly fails point 1 of WP:NFC.
 * The fact that the original image is no longer on WWE.com, but that "only we have it" is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
 * As to your comments on File talk:RhodesScholarsDecember10.jpg, it is entirely plausible that a free-use image will be found of the team – I do not have to upload one to prove it. We have free images in most of the current WWE wrestlers articles, including several tag teams (e.g. the Usos.) We also free images of the team in past tag team articles (e.g. The Hart Dynasty, The Bella Twins, etc.) Naturally of course, it takes for a suitable free-use to be found, but we do not keep fair-use images in the article until then.
 * Also, the "alternatives" you linked to at File talk:RhodesScholarsDecember10.jpg are all non-free as well, owned and copyrighted by WWE. Therefore these cannot be used either, as again as images of an active tag team, they fail point 1 of WP:NFC.
 * I hope this has clarified the matter for you. Thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  14:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. The images were taken by fans in attendance at WWE events, making them the copyright holder as opposed to WWE. At least, that's my understanding of it. I am by no means an expert in copyright law, and especially in the US considering I've never stepped foot in the country. We've never had a problem with the images taken by fans at the events as far as I know. I've uploaded plenty of files of WWE employees over the last few years on Wikimedia commons, without any problems. I'm keeping an eye out for a free one of Sandow and Rhodes together to upload. :) Nici  Vampire  Heart  08:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, people take pictures of anyone in the ring most of the time, so it's not that hard. Sometimes they're flickr photos, others are ones taken by editors who upload them. If I see any Rhodes Scholars ones, I'll upload them, don't worry about that. :) Nici  Vampire  Heart  06:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teen-Age Romances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Baker (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) 11:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Colb


A tag has been placed on Colb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ushau97 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dive!!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Koji Sato (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, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WWX


A tag has been placed on WWX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ushau97 talk  contribs 13:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

=February=

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Becca Swanson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWX


 * Golden Retriever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to GRCC


 * Green Concorde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWX

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Witch girl


The article Witch girl has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unneeded disambiguation page, as there are no articles known as 'witch girl'. Most examples aren't even notable by themselves.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy0307 (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Witch girl
Hi, I'm TheOriginalSoni. Ranze, thanks for creating Witch girl!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It would be better if the various subjects are classified using the category they are in (Movies, TV etc) than chronologically

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Talkback
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Teen-Age


The article Teen-Age has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no evidence this is a real concept.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Teen-Age for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teen-Age 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/Teen-Age until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Frankenstein (1910 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Edmund Mortimer and Witch girl


 * Peter Yang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Big Boss

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Roy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Dog (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) 11:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Neoteny
Hi! I reverted your change of neoteny, because it does not make sense to first mention "... one of the three ways by which pedomorphism can arise" followed by explaining what pedomorphosis means. However, the lead is unclear (see also comments in the section Talk:Neoteny and you seem to know more about neoteny. So if you could help clarifying the lead, that would be greatly appreciated. With friendly regards, Lova Falk   talk  05:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Tribes
I find it kind of weird that you'd be asking me this as we never talked before. But to answer yor question, you may need to get some reliable sources to prove they are at least part of the same universe. Just so there won't be an issue with adding them in the template. GamerPro64 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

=March=

Free online games category
Ranze, for category merges, rather than using merge tag, you should instead start a discussion at Categories for discussion. I've started that discussion for you, found at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 3. Please comment there why you think the categories should be merged. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Shared universe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Super Dimension


 * Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Super Dimension

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ToukonRetsuden3blackTigerEddieGuerrero.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:ToukonRetsuden3blackTigerEddieGuerrero.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

=April=

Orphaned non-free media (File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black belt (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) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI - Article Probation on Men's rights movement
This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' --v/r - TP 18:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Apex fallacy


A tag has been placed on Apex fallacy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

'' no valid source, no real information, it's an internet neologism with no actual substance, akin to sayings on "urban dictionary". Are we going to make a Wikipedia page for every neologism added to urban dictionary now? Can I just make up concepts as I see fit, and then make a Wikipedia page for it? Not to mention the fact that the source doesn't appear to be a valid source for a logical fallacy, which makes this "original work" (I use that term lightly, there is no work to be seen here.)''

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Countered (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Apex_fallacy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apex_fallacy 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/Apex_fallacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countered (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ranze. I took the liberty of adding a Keep to your entry on here Page deletion. Remove it if you wish. CSDarrow (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Too many 3s
For our reference, let's include your edit:


 * Kofi Kingston, a pro wrestler who grew up in Boston and graduated from Boston College, won his 3rd WWE United States Championship while competing in Boston 3 days prior (April 12) to the bombing. He qualified for it by defeating Antonio Cesaro 3 days prior to his match (April 9). His signature move, the "Boom Drop" is built up to by Kofi shouting "Boom Boom Boom". Known as the "Boom Squad General", he uses "S.O.S." as his theme song.

I really don't think this is relevant to the article. It may be some trivia worthy of discussion on internet wrestling forums or other commentary, or perhaps even worthy of being included on Kington's own article page. However, pro wrestling is quite far removed from the Boston Marathon bombings. I doubt that it is appropriate for the article, especially since a lot of more relevant information has not been included. For instance, international reactions to the attack have been removed from the article, because they are not directly related to the attacks. I would like to cite an essay, Handling_trivia regarding trivia:


 * Some trivia is important to only some of the subjects; much trivia appearing on Wikipedia is of this variety.


 * Some trivia that is especially tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion at all.

The information that you've posted, in my opinion, is only interesting to a relatively small group of readers, and frankly isn't relevant compared to the other information presented in the article on the bombings. This is only my opinion, however; if you disagree, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page and consult third parties if you wish. I hope this clarifies why I deleted your edit. Though I agree it is a coincidence, I don't think it meets Wikipedia's content guidelines, especially not for inclusion on a major article. Thank you for your time. Regards, Richard Yetalk 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I believe that I have made my reasons for removing your content clear -- it is simply not relevant, especially when compared to other, more relevant, content that has also been removed. Furthermore, Wikipedia is no grounds for layman speculation on what is or is not relevant to any criminal investigation. Should we include all of the coincidences that could have triggered motivation for the bombing, we would wind up with a very long article indeed. If you believe that you have information regarding the investigation, you should contact the FBI directly; a Wikipedia page is not a good nor appropriate place to give officials any leads or tips. Nonetheless, if you disagree with me, you are free to start a discussion on the article's talk page if you want to get other people's opinions. You may even revert my edit and change the page back if you wish -- that is your right. However, I believe that if you were to do so, another editor would again remove the content for the same reasons that I did. Thanks, Richard Yetalk 05:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kofi Kingston
Hi, I did not appreciate you accusing me of diminishing Kofi Kingston's win. Just cause I am a fan of Cesaro doesn't mean anything, I just didn't find mentioning his hometown and the Boston Bombing necessary. You are probably a big fan of Kingston, as am I, but I have never tried to diminish his or anyone's articles in the full year I have been editing. Sir Wrestler (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common-law marriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xtra (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) 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:KFKcover1.jpg
Apologies for forgetting about your request until now. I've undeleted the image so you could add a rationale for it.  Maxim (talk)  17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

NFL Scouting Combine
This list is for bench press records that happened at the NFL Scouting Combine, not at some place else. --bender235 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

=May=

oral suction method
I admire your courage in taking on the circumcision article police fprce !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Baby genital mutilation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baby genital mutilation 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/Baby genital mutilation until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jay Σεβαστός discuss  23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I did not have internet for the brief period that your suggestion was permitted to be discussed . I would have supported your idea for a separate article. It is remarkable that out of 1700 admins that it is generally the same ones who shut down MGM discussion FAST ! --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Your addition to Alicia Witt has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mkdw talk 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Violence against people
Template:Violence against people has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Stop with the 'violence against people' templates. You are not using them correctly

In any case, slow down with the spamming of the template. All I initially saw was the proposed deletion. Sorry. '' Onorem♠Dil 16:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

FGM
May I suggest you try comparing what is removed with female genital mutilation to an equivalent procedure on a man's penis? Most Type I FGM involves at least the removal of the clitoral glans. The intent seems to be to prevent the woman from having an orgasm / enjoying sex. This probably would be similar to removal of the head or glans of a man's penis which would likely prevent orgasm. Type II might be similar to removing the glans and scarring up the skin of the penis so that when the man has sex, he is unable to have an orgasm (which seems to be the intent behind FGM). Furthermore, sex would be somewhat to extremely painful and accompanied by significant bleeding. Of course, sex from the man would be demanded so that it would be difficult to avoid. So, if you believe that if FGM is circumcision, there would seem to be an issue with definitions. Women typically have poorly executed FGM, as most are performed by untrained people. The result is much scar tissue and unplanned damage. Having sex is often somewhat painful to excruciating. Many women who have had FGM try to avoid sex. If you don't have sex, you don't get sex induced urinary or reproductive tract infections. Hence, FGM reduces infections! It would appear that the labia minora and labia majora appear to keep the area sealed off, preventing intrusion of dirt, liquids, and feces. Removal of those 'flaps' seem likely to increase infections. Women who have undergone FGM also have a higher rate of death from childbirth. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, I would suggest you take your word definition issue up with WHO. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources not the basis of words. As WHO is considered a very reliable source, it would take a majority of equal or better sources to supercede it. BTW: May I suggest reviewing the talk page and talk page archive? There has been considerable discussion on this. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A request
Hi Ranze, I'm here to ask you again to gain consensus first on the talk page for your edits to FGM. You might also want to look at WP:3RR, which refers to any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page
Appreciate your input. Similar WP insanity is being directed at CSDarrow as well. See our respective Talk pages. Continue the good work. Memills (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557132019 your edit] to Buried treasure (disambiguation) 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].

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Highlander: The Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Byrnes (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) 11:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

=June=

Speedy deletion nomination of Secret dating
Hello Ranze,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Secret dating for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, :.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Bruno Russell (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. -- MisterShiney   ✉    18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Secret dating (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Romance, Friends with benefits, Ian Thomas, Forbidden love and Secret Love


 * 18 (number) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Age, Exploit and Coach


 * Femininism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Wu Wei


 * Lemora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Steve Johnson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Femininism
Can you explain the difference between Femininism and feminism? I'm a bit confused. Uberaccount (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hasbro my little pony booth sdcc 2011.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Hasbro my little pony booth sdcc 2011.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:British Airborne Units.gif


A tag has been placed on File:British Airborne Units.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Unicornio alado (Le Manége d'Andrea) Segovia.JPG


A tag has been placed on File:Unicornio alado (Le Manége d'Andrea) Segovia.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Reytan Map 22.png


A tag has been placed on File:Reytan Map 22.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

winged unicorn
We use what reliably published sources say about the topic, not taking what we think we see in a primary source and making a claim based on that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Al-Bukhari article
Ranze, you can't just highlight ONE bit from an enormous corpus of hadith as representing Bukhari's teaching. You may have the best of intentions in calling attention to one hadith that seems to treat homosexuality in a neutral fashion, as an intimate relationship that establishes kin relations. Bukhari is not all about being gay. The collection is not all about anything. I don't see how it could be summarized.

I am not resisting your addition because I'm prejudiced against gays. My two roommates are a gay couple ... they're like sons. They're my boys. I only want the article to be neutral and balanced.

Feel free to talk to me about this. Zora (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're going to assert that Bukhari has a POV (re Islam and shari'a) that is expressed in his collection, then you should be quoting scholars (Islamic or Western academic) who have investigated that. Making a list of the hadith that strike YOU as important (out of a collection of 2602 hadith) is really a personal POV. Please do not insist on posting your own POV. Zora (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ranze, we're not supposed to fill Wikipedia with our own opinions. We are supposed to defer to published work that can be cited. If there is a controversy, we are supposed to present all notable opinions, in neutral fashion. And yes, we defer to scholars who have studied matters. You may not think their opinions worthwhile (and indeed, the judgment of time often decides that they made mistakes) ... but they are more likely to be right than Joe or Jane Blow who have never studied the matter at all.

Hadith are important in Islam. They are studied by Islamic scholars and Western-style academics alike. Smart people, who certainly know more about history and fiqh than we do. Zora (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that particular hadith in the LGBT and Islam article would be good. It shows that shari'a can be neutral about homosexuality. Zora (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WrestleMania29promotionFunkadactyls&TonsOfFunkVersusTeamRhodesScholars&BellaTwins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intersex surgery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genital mutilation (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) 11:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

=July=

Welcome
Welcome Ranze! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are users!

Hello, Ranze. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

 Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of winged unicorns, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trixie, White Horse and Princess Luna (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) 10:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:SMT template
Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Men's Issues
I created a candidate page. Take a look: User:Ummonk/WikiProject Men's Issues Ummonk (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Money, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadist (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) 11:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

=August=

"East and West never had good witches"
FWIW, The Wicked Witch of North (Mombi) was replaced with the Good Witch of the North. The Wicked Witch of the South was replaced with Glinda. The Wicked Witch of the East was replaced with Dorothy; and the Wicked Witch of the West was replaced by the Tin Woodman, who rules over the Winkie Kingdom in the later books p  b  p  15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Stitch! episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ord (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) 11:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

August 19 2013
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "clarify isn't NPOV, it implies that the statemenet is correct" - The statement is objectively correct. The SPLC, for whom Potok is the spokesperson, did not list these sites on their hate group list. This is a fact which is verifiable by, you know, looking at the list. What is it that makes you think you've discovered some great secret about what was really on their list? Do you have a hard copy where a bunch of extra sites were added in invisible ink? Stop this now, please. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're also in violation of the 1RR restriction on the article. You're doing badly enough with trying to insert your personal opinions - I recommend that you don't add edit-warring on top of that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Block
To enforce an community sanction, and for violating WP:1RR on the page Controversial Reddit communities, as described at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the sanction and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by the consensus of the community. You must either discuss this block with the blocking administrator and receive their approval, or receive consensus at a community noticeboard before reversing this block.

I am unclear why my edits warrant a block, and why Rosc's don't. That I'm inserting OR and personal opinions is a false allegation. I am removing original research (the use of "clarify" is original research, and is the personal opinion of Rosc, it doesn't represent any facts). What you are calling a "revert" is my adding direct quotes from the source material representing the language used in the report. I am not edit-warring, rather I am trying to reach an amiable middle ground and communicate with opposition. I am not simply reverting edits over and over again claiming "OR". My edits have each been constructive and different. I have not reverted twice in a row, so I see this as an unjust ban that should have been applied to the other party.

Since I can't today, I'd like to request an arbiter be applied for here. It's clearly getting out of hand. Sections are not the personal property of their creators, and the subtle meaning of words in edits are being misrepresented.


 * you're still carrying on this crusade to pretend that Potok might somehow have been unaware that it was indeed secretly named a hate group

This is untrue, I am not implying or pretending here. My personal opinion on Potok's awareness is not relevant to this discussion, as I have never injected that into the description. All I have done here is present what was written and neutralized the language. Terms like "claim" or "say" or "state" are all neutral. They represent the communication of ideas, they do not assess the quality or truthfulness of those ideas.


 * You already knew that you should not have added it

What material are you talking about 'adding'? I admit the "based on" part is one I recognize as being suggestive (we don't necessarily know which statements, if any, led to rumour-reactions, or even the source of rumours, and indeed I'm still skeptical that we have adequately sourced that there WERE rumours (or specifically what those rumours were), since this seems to be going on the claim of the reporter who interviewed Potok.

Aside from rumour-source, which I voluntarily removed (with no help identifying what it was) what else did I add that you object to? The word "claim" is not "adding" anything. It is rather subtracting from the word "clarify" (clarifying is making a claim which is truthful and educating) because that deviates from NPOV and is your own personal analysis that what he said was clarifying.

If I were "adding" something, I might have said he "confused the issue" or "lied" or "played word games". But I didn't say anything opinionated like that, I instead simply made the language NPOV. If you don't like 'claim', that's fine, but we should have a more neutral verb here than 'clarify'. The sources do not support the use of clarify. Your use of that is based on your own personal analysis that his statement is an accurate analysis of the report, which may or may not be true.

Unless you can provide a scholarly source that says Potok's response "clarified" it, we should not be communicating that idea, especially since the report did accuse the reddit of being hateful. That's awesome if he wants to make the insinuations along the line of 'calling a site hateful is not calling it a hate site', but that doesn't mean we should declare such things as a clarification. "This is clarifying" is a judgment call on your part and not a scholarly opinion. Potok's own opinion about whether or not he was clarifying is not known, and since he is not a neutral party (having an interest of defending the reputation of his group), he doesn't make a reliable reference in that context. He's a spokesman for the group, not a scholar analyzing the group from a distance.


 * blocked Ranze for violating WP:1RR (actually, they did three reverts)

Bbb23, I'm interested in viewing the diff URLs for the three you describe. Do you mean 3 reverts within 24 hours, or 3 separate instances of double-reverting within 24 hours, or just 3 total? I edited in 2 blocks today, 3 in sequence at 20h and 2 in sequence (ignoring Bot) at 21h. I don't view either as reverts (because I was doing a multitude of things, including formatting) but even if you view it that way I'm not sure how that amounts to more than 2. Ranze (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I have a real job and have been off-wiki until now. Your first revert was a sequence of three edits culminating at 20:37. Your second and third reverts were single edits at 20:57 and 21:45. All were done on August 26, and I'm using UTC. Content disputes are not an exemption from edit warring. I don't have to treat you and Roscelese the same if in my view your conduct warranted a block (and it was short) and hers didn't. It's true that over time, both of you have edit warred in the article, but you're the only one who breached 1RR, and you exceeded it not by one but by two reverts. Roscelese, on the other hand, reverted only once in the same 24-hour window. Nonetheless, I did warn her, which is what I thought was appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe there's a few mistakes being made here:
 * The series culminating at 20:37 can be narrowed down, as I think you'll agree that the 20:31 and 20:37 ones weren't anywhere close to reverting since I was editing the 2nd part about the doxxing and admin shutdown which Rosc and I weren't in any observable disagreement about. It's worth noting that Rosc reverted those 2 edits as well even though they clearly were not OR though, evidencing blanket mass-reverting which draws into question how much was being read. The subsectioning and fact-tagging a word which Bread just ended up agreeing about and removing wasn't OR. The middle edit was just my restoring some content I had accidentally omitted which had been added after the content removal.
 * Your first issue is with the 20:25 edit I think. Where I restored content deleted Aug 22 because Rosc wasn't properly explaining what was OR.
 * Your second issue, with 20:57, was not performing the same action. Rosc wouldn't identify what was OR, so I had to guess at what was considered that, and voluntarily kept it out, and restored the other things which were not OR. These are new additions, because from my perspective, Rosc was only trying to remove the part I did not restore, and was simply tossing the rest of the edits out alongside them, not wanting to take the time to distinguish the good from the bad.
 * Your third issue, with 21:45, I am not at all clear why you are calling this a revert. This content was never on the page before. It's entirely new content, so by adding it I was not 'reverting' anything. I think maybe you assumed this to be a revert because it wasn't a sequential edit, but if you'll notice, the edit before it was by "AnomieBOT" and they were just dating the fact-tag, so I clearly was not reverting them or anyone else in that edit. I was expanding the doxxing section, which was not the section in dispute about the SPLC.

The only things that could (at a stretch) be considered a double-revert are 20:25 and 20:57, and I dispute that, because in 57 I was co-operating with Rosc, reading her edit summaries and trying to modify my edit to omit what my best guess was that she was calling OR. I didn't simply restore the entire thing again, I restored the parts which I know are not OR.

You only seem to be looking at a more recent 24-hour window. After blocking me 00:26, 27 August, you replied at 00:31 on the talk page to an Aug 26 reply I made on the issue you brought up Aug 22, where you (wrongly, I think) said I reverted 3 times (we may be in dispute about whether or not 20:25/20:57 are reverts but I hope we can at least agree that 21:45 was not?) In that post I made which you replied to, I had said the following:
 * there's already been a sequence with a 9-hour gap between first and second.

So when you say Rosc wasn't double-reverting, are you saying you do not consider those a removal of content? Or are you saying it gets a free pass because it happened prior to your issuing the announcement? Ranze (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're wearing me out with your walls of text (on my talk page, too - is there really a need to plaster the same stuff everywhere?) and your quibbling. Worse, I have trouble following your arguments. You need to read up on WP:3RR, which defines a revert. You conflate your conduct with the content dispute, and the content dispute is irrelevant to the conduct. I will, however, agree that some might not consider the 21:45 edit as a revert for two reasons. First, there were no intervening edits between the 21:45 edit and the edit before that except the bot edit, although there was a significant lapse of time. Second, your point about adding material. The second reason is more complex to analyze, though. Roscelese removed the doxxing section entirely. you added part of it back (that's the second revert). Then in the 21:45 edit you added to it. The phrase "Accusations were also levied" refers back to the piece you had restored, meaning the addition was dependent on the second revert. I could see that being counted as a third revert. All this aside, even if I had not counted the 21:45 edit as a revert, I still would have blocked you for violating WP:1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Left a message on the talk because I wasn't sure if you'd be monitoring my talk once it expired, if you are I can just reply here though.
 * You conflate your conduct with the content dispute, and the content dispute is irrelevant to the conduct.

It is relevant to the conduct, the dispute was where we were actually changing the material on. Edits made outside the disputed area couldn't feasibly be seen as reverts.
 * some might not consider the 21:45 edit as a revert

Wow, that's pretty conservative. Do you think ANYONE would consider 21:45 as a revert? For what conceivable reason could someone think that?
 * there was a significant lapse of time

Which is relevant how? If I edit, a bot edits an hour later, and I edit the next hour, that last edit isn't conceivably a revert of anything, if all I was doing was adding new material which had not been disputed or reverted previously.
 * Roscelese removed the doxxing section entirely.

No, she didn't. Rosc's edits prior to the edits of mind you're calling reverts were the 06:24 edit on Aug 22 (where notably, Breadblade's contribution to the section title of Creepshots was also reverted in a blanket "OR" accusation) and then later the 20:41 one on Aug 26. In neither of these edits did Rosc remove the discussion about Reddit admins threatening to shut down the subreddit over doxxing. As far as I can tell, in the first edit it wasn't even touched, and in the second edit, all that was changed was my addition of a section heading and my splitting 1 paragraph into 2. These are minor formatting issues and I'm quite confident were not the aim of Rosc's revert. Rosc would not be calling a section title or paragraph-splitting 'original research'. But never once did Rosc remove any actual content in that line of discussion.
 * you added part of it back (that's the second revert)

All that got added back was a paragraph break and a subsection heading. This is not a content dispute here, I'm not sure why you're focusing on the doxxing section at all. I added the heading to distinguish between two completely unrelated events, the SPLC issue and the doxxing issue. Clearly what happened there is Rosc cancelled those changes by reverting all my edits. The summary made it clear that it was the first (SPLC) which was being disputed.
 * Then in the 21:45 edit you added to it.

Yes, and adding to a section which Rosc never actually removed content from is not reverting. The only editor I could see as conceivably targetting the necessity of there being a section is Bread, who called it 'fluff/pad'. Seeing as how I'm not getting any response from them about supporting that accusation, I'm planning on adding that expansion back.
 * even if I had not counted the 21:45 edit as a revert, I still would have blocked you

Not including 21:45 is a no-brainer since it's been based on the misinterpretation that Rosc had removed an entire section. I want to pass by disputing that because it shouldn't even be necessary, I'm disputing the accusation about 20:24 and 20:57. Rosc was mass-reverting instead of selectively reverting. I read the summary, a concern about OR, and focused on what I recognized OR, and restored everything but that part. So I was not restoring the parts which I thought Rosc was not calling OR. I did not revert her reversion of the part I did not restore, because in reading what I wrote a second time, I recognized that it was opinion leaking in. Rosc's edit summary was misleading by reverting parts which were not OR (like the section quoting) and not selectively reverting only the edits which were perceived as OR.

I'm thinking quantity could be measured here on a basis besides per-diff. How about per-point? If I make separate edits adding 3 things, all 3 get reverted as OR, but only 1 is, and I restore the other 2, how is that not a reversion?

This is getting treated like a 'who gets there first, who times their edits better' game and the points themselves are being ignored. I would like to see some oversight here and make this less about gaming and more about discussion and reading logical consensus. That's why I didn't edit initially after my ban expired. I am going to go back to editing now, and I will certainly hesitate about doing so in a short timespan, less something get misinterpreted as reverting again. The definition for revert is a bit loose, I think. I understand the purpose of forbidding partial reverts, but that can be abuse to prevent almost any kind of editing whatsoever.

Also I'd appreciate not being insulted as 'quibbling'. If things as I perceive as outright falsehoods are being used to justify a ban, I'm going to object to those claims. I apologize if there's trouble understanding the arguments, the 'walls of text' as you put them are me trying to explain my objection in detail. I'm not 'plastering the same stuff' though, I type everything fresh. Ranze (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume that just because the 20:45 edit should not have been counted as a revert means that everything else you're saying is correct. Also, don't become so immersed in the details of your arguments that you lose sight of what's involved here. Read the probation sanctions. In particular, read the bullets under "How to avoid being subject to remedies." Although violating 3RR (or 1RR when applicable) is always a problem, you have to tread more carefully when you're involved with an article that is subject to special sanctions. You were notified generally of the sanctions. You (and others) were warned specifically about the MRM section on the Reddit page being subject to the sanctions. Yet you went ahead and violated 1RR anyway. Endless post-sanction argument may be making you feel better, but it would be more constructive for you to learn from this and be more circumspect in the future.


 * You said: "Edits made outside the disputed area couldn't feasibly be seen as reverts." The definition of revert is any material that you change/remove, not just material that is disputed. Whether you thought you were reverting in areas that had been uncontroversial or whether you believed Roscelese's edit summaries were "misleading" doesn't matter. If you have issues with her edits, you can discuss them on the talk page, as long as you do so in an appropriate manner, or you can report her if you believe her behavior was sanctionable, but you can't use it as a justification to violate the sanctions yourself.


 * My guess is I'll get another long post from you related to this reply. You would be better off if you just moved on.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

=September=

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linda Lusk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purse (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) 11:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erin Pizzey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey James (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) 11:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

=October=

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitchcraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitch (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) 11:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jamie Brewer


The article Jamie Brewer has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Alrofficial (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Alrofficial (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of youngest wives


The article List of youngest wives has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article lacks credible sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pitti6 (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578657944 your edit] to List of youngest wives 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) 07:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * *Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg)

=November=

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purple drank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skittles (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) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 18:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Noticed your comment on "Genital modification and mutilation"
Hi, I am a new editor here. I would like to help create a more neutral position in articles relating to the Infants' and Children's Rights Movement, specifically in regards to the International Campaign for Genital Integrity. DavidHGrateful (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

File:CensoredRogerRabbit.jpg
There is already the first edition cover. Shall I remove this subsequent edition cover that you uploaded from the article? --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

=December=

File:CensoredRogerRabbit.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CensoredRogerRabbit.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A Voice for Men
Hi. I noticed you tried at one time to remove the spam block on A Voice for Men. An article on AVfM has been started and while it's within guidelines for me to have created it we need others to help contribute and improve it. Do you think you'd be interested? I'd rather be the Wikipedian In Residence and not the main article contributor. If you know others interested that would be cool too. Dean Esmay (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)