User talk:Spudst3r

Proposed deletion of Willingness to accept
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Willingness to accept, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced, apparent original research

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students
Please use the talk page prior to editing the CFS article. While I think I understand your desire to add certain information, your approach is not at all constructive or helpful. 71.7.133.156 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays
Please discuss the image on the talk page rather than restoring it again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Image problems
Please stop uploading images for which you fail to add the appropriate copyright details, or whose details you don't have. We take copyright status very seriously and the images you uploaded don't have this information, so have been nominated for deletion. While you may have made the screen capture, you did not make the original image and that is what counts, so you cannot own the copyright and these images are most likely copyright of the original cinematographer which is not you. Please don't upload images unless you have the permission of the copyright holder or you produced them yourself and are releasing them under a free licence. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

LikeALittle
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have restored the article, so that you can improve it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you haven't edited the article yet. It was restored because you said you knew of sources that indicate notability, but if you don't edit the article to incorporate that evidence of notability then it will be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi James, I added quite a number of sources indicating notability, but it appears that the page has been deleted again. College papers have been used for sources on other pages that I've used.  There are also other non-college news sources like the Toronto Star that were sourced.  Why was it deleted?Spudst3r (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The coverage seemed rather parochial, and not all that substantial. What exists in other articles is not always a good guide, as there are many articles which don't satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines, and which may well be deleted if and when someone notices them and nominates them for deletion. College papers are fine as sources for verification of content, but how useful they are as sources to establish notability is debatable. I think it depends on various circumstances, such as how substantial the coverage is. However, since you have contested the deletion in the above message, I will restore the article. It will still be possible for someone to take it to Articles For Deletion, but if so it is by no means certain that it will be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Securitization (international relations), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State. 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) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
Here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
In accordance with the men's rights movement community sanctions, you are hereby banned from making any edit or commenting on any content relating to the the men's rights movement, including any issues or people associated with that movement and closely related issues. This topic ban is in place indefinitely, but can be reviewed after three months of productive editing in another topic area. The reason for this restriction is that you have, in my opinion, an unhealthy focus on this topic and it would be in your interests and those of the encyclopaedia for you to broaden your editing interests; the immediate cause is your repeated addition of editorial-style content to encyclopaedia articles, based on novel synthesis of source material. This is as a result of this complaint at AE, but note that this restriction is imposed under the community sanctions rather than under Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions. Although there is considerable overlap between the two, the consensus appears to be that the articles on masculinity and the men's rights movement are not within the scope of the gamergate discretionary sanctions (which cover "any gender-related dispute or controversy"), but that controversies relating to them would be. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unbelievable. "Unhealthy focus"? I wonder if this idea will be fairly applied to all editors exhibiting and "unhealthy focus", or more likely, it will only be applied to those whose opinions do not mesh with the cabal of highly-POV admins/watchdogs? Shame... 70.109.187.181 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's embarassing, but I have to share a country with HJ Mitchell. It's incredible such bigots are given a platform by Wikipedia. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:HJ Mitchell. Its been over a year since this topic ban and I've made many edits since in quite a variety of subjects. Can I have this reviewed now? Cheers. (Also sorry for those nasty ppl above, I don't know them.) Spudst3r (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KIC 8462852 (October 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam Sailor was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KIC 8462852 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:KIC_8462852 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Sailor&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:KIC_8462852 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- Sam Sailor Talk! 20:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:KIC 8462852-kepler transit-data-graph-smaller-frequencies.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KIC 8462852-kepler transit-data-graph-smaller-frequencies.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Spudst3r. The license of the paper is linked to in the "(license)" link under 'Download' - it's arxiv-only. I'll delete the files as they clearly don't have a suitable license for Wikipedia. It would be worth contacting the authors of that paper to ask if they would be willing to release the images under a CC-BY-SA license, though! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for KIC 8462852
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assisted suicide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia. 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) 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:KIC 8462852


Hello, Spudst3r. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "KIC 8462852".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Phoenix (web framework) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Phoenix (web framework). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Phoenix (web framework) (February 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Phoenix (web framework) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Phoenix (web framework), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Phoenix_(web_framework) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Phoenix_(web_framework) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Phoenix (web framework) (May 8 2018)
Your updated draft of Phoenix (web framework) meets the Wikipedia guidelines for significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability. 2 million concurrent sockets (as noted in one of your external references) is notable, as is the repo having over 10,000 stars, putting it well into the top quartile of the top 2500 GitHub repos. The stub-class article Phoenix (web framework) is available. Thanks to the other editors for their feedback and requirement of secondary, non-related sources and many thanks to your for your work on this important topic.Cypherquest (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Phoenix (web framework) (May 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Phoenix (web framework) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Phoenix (web framework), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Phoenix_(web_framework) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Phoenix_(web_framework) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Phoenix (web framework) (June 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Mighty Glen was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Phoenix (web framework) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Phoenix (web framework), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Phoenix_(web_framework) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Mighty_Glen&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Phoenix_(web_framework) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TMGtalk 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not attribute things I was not doing: I genuinely did not see your surprise revert and was merely updating my original edit, no sneaky edit intended whatsoever. I'm unclear why merely stating the scientific and cited fact that no source has been found yet is objectionable or non-notable.Spudst3r (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Logitech G19


A tag has been placed on Logitech G19, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nordstream
At least there's something on the page regarding Hersh. I'm honestly surprised, since most of the time all mention of it would have been completely removed. I think the reason is that there's enough secondary coverage of Hersh that that's why the other mods haven't been able to claim wholesale WP:NOTRS and not have it mentioned on the page at all. Nobody is mentioning the secondary coverage on Hersh, let alone citing the secondary articles saying that "Hersh is bogus," which actually might be a good citation to add; but I think that's what's really going on and that's the reason that no one has outright deleted it from the article entirely. Why do you think it hasn't been removed completely?

I went through a similar experience on the 2021-2023 inflation surge page, where I was being denied to even mention that the massive amount of money printing was a cause, despite sourcing Stanford/Johns Hopkins economists and being well-within [what WP considers] reputable sources with WSJ/CNBC/Forbes, and I was still getting reverted. It wasn't until the M2 v. inflation graph was posted that there was suddenly a 180 degree turn, and then all of a sudden my arguments that "Hey, WSJ/CNBC/Forbes are in the WP:RS listing, and Johns Hopkins/Stanford economists are experts" suddenly took hold and I was able to get that single section in there. It's weird from a Wikipedia Policy POV, because that graph shouldn't have been the reason to stop reverting the edits, and I was anticipating someone screaming WP:OR about that graph, but in practice that's how it works sometimes. I think a similar unmentioned psychological phenomena is happening here.

I think this is going to be one of those things that we'll have to wait until the war's end before Hersh's reporting can be cross-verified by a third party, and then we'll finally see some cracks in the dam start to loosen up on this information. Well, my real guess is that the war will end, then there'll be a report released by a Danish investigation team, nobody will report on it and nobody will know about it, and then that can get added to the article; but by then nobody will care about this article.

Anyways, my 2 cents.Fephisto (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, I think you are right. There is a lot of emotional editing and tendentious watering down of the stated facts that appears to be going on, to favour a narrative of minimization.  I don't really understand this drive, an encyclopedia should preserve all the relevant prominent discourse and let the reader decide.  I myself have no idea whether Hersh is lying or being misled either. Spudst3r (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing & stop edit warring
You are engaging in disruptive editing & edit warring in both the Nord Stream explosion article page and talk page  under the sub-section topic you started titled “Berliner Zeitung as RS” (here ) It’s been explained to you & proven to you that Berliner Zeitung is not a wiki RS (here ) And I know you read that comment about BZ not being listed as a wiki RS because you replied to me and ‘thanked me’ for giving you the list, here. Yet, even after knowing BZ is not a wiki RS you are flagrantly & intentionally ignoring wiki policies WP:NOTRS by repeatedly try to add BZ into the article as a source. That is disruptive editing, verges on edit warring, and does not help improve the article. It’s intentional actions like that which get people topic banned or even permanently banned from wiki. Multiple times it's been explained to you and others, that if you all want to try to get BZ listed as a wiki RS then you must follow wiki rules at WP:RSPMISSING and start an RS/N. , Remember, Wiki is not your blog, WP:NOTCV & WP:NOTWEBHOST so follow wiki guidelines. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe you are projecting here @BetsyRMadison, just a friendly warning that today you were in violation of the 3 revert rule by reverting my changes and those of other editors. I opened that talk section, a discussion was had, and with good reasons given by other editors nobody agreed with your position.  Respectfully, you are the one doing edit warring and disruptive editing on that page, while accusing others of it. Spudst3r (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * sounds like you're also engaging in GAMING & looking for 'loopholes' to intentionally edit in bad-faith. You knew BZ is not an RS when you re-added it. And now you 'warned' me not to undo your edit where you added the BZ citation and say "just a friendly warning that today you were in violation of the 3 revert rule by reverting my changes and those of other editors. You know WP:GAMING & disruptive editing, edit warring, & intentionally ignoring wiki policies can get a person permanently banned.
 * A "talk page" is not an RS noticeboard.  Wiki policy says WP:RSPMISSING says [[tq| "start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN)}} ( noticeboard, not talk page ) if you want to try to get Berliner Zeitung listed as an RS.
 * We follow wiki policies. Not yours, not mine, & not others. If you reject this warning and continue to engage in GAMING, disruptive editing, edit wars, and flagrantly disregarding policies you will leave me no choice but to bring up your behavoir disruptive on a noticeboard with Adm. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @BetsyRMadison please assume good faith, tone down your rhetoric and not personalize the argument. I know we have an editorial disagreement about this but I have actually come to your defence on a previous edit.  E.g.: changing "stated" to "accused" was a good one per MOS:ACCUSED.  Please try not to view the process as adversarial and let us come to a constructive consensus. Spudst3r (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record: A — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) 05:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
—  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

—  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)