User talk:Sparkyscience/Archives/2017/March

Replaceable fair use File:Time crystal phase transition.png
Thanks for uploading File:Time crystal phase transition.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Qualitative explanation of time translation symmetry breaking.png
Thanks for uploading File:Qualitative explanation of time translation symmetry breaking.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictures
Hey. I'm sorry, but I've had to delete the picture you uploaded of Dr. Montonen. This is for legal reasons: because Dr. Montonen is still alive, it's still hypothetically possible for someone to take a new photo of him and release its license under the appropriate conditions. Nonfree images are only acceptable if no free image is even possible. Sorry for the inconvenience. DS (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history at 7 World Trade Center shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David J Johnson (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense and you know it. I was reverting to a previous version of the article which had consensus, and it is you who reverted to a version which did not have consensus without using the talk page. Moreover I have never added content to the article without using the talk page.--Sparkyscience (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No it is not nonsense. You have made 3 reverts in less than twenty-four hours and that alone exposes you to a block. The reversion you keep making is well sourced in a reliable publication. You are a fairly new editor and I suggest you read carefully the following note from another experienced editor. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Editors Sparkyscience and SputnicK need to be aware of the notice at the top of the 7 World Trade Center talk page: "In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision." Let this be the required notice.  -Jord gette  [talk]  20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. Still nonsense! You are reverting to a version which does not yet have consensus without using the talk page. Raise any further comment there rather then here.--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories in your test page

 * Dear Sparkyscience,
 * The page User:Sparkyscience/Test appears in many unrelated categories,
 * It is not common to put user pages in main categories,
 * Can you please remove these categories? --Erel Segal (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * oops! done--Sparkyscience (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)