User talk:VMS Mosaic

stop the heavy handed editing and snarky comments. Use common sense as a content editor rather than referring to the catacombs of Wikipedia rules that can be interpreted to mean whatever and whenever. No wonder Wikipedia is not attracting new content editors.

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II on the PC
The reliable source is here. And on Wookieepedia they tell that the PC version will be developed by Aspyr. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than reverting some vandalism on 6/2, I'm not involved with the Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II article. The proper place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy
This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

french fries
do you have any clue as to what a chip is..... 94.168.193.75 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is your attitude. You need to get along with other editors.  Calling people dump and invalidly accusing them of vandalism is not acceptable behavior.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting valid edits is vandalism Calling a valid edit vandalism is dumb and I believe you mean dumb not dump but that can be excused due to Americans poor grasp of the English language 94.168.193.75 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User blocked for vandalism several minute later. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New color displays for red, yellow, green, and blue
Please review the new color displays I have prepared to resolve the dispute regarding which colors to use to represent these four colors. The new color displays are at under the section "New color displays". Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, thank you for your assiduous efforts in reverting vandalism in the List of colors article! Keraunos (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Recepton and External Links
try not to remove these so quickly as they are meant to show that they need expansion and are vital for series articles like Android Kikaider. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Empty sections make an article look amateurish. Consider using a template like  or  . VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are there, it's not because they'll continue to stay empty. those sections are one of the fundamental sections that most articles similar to Android Kikaider have. I just tihnk you could've waited a little longer before removing them so quickly. I know looking ameteurish is bad, but that doesn't mean we can solve it by removing it. It needs expansion>Bread Ninja (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Parsley
Please note that Parsley is a European species, as such it should follow European English spellings (i.e., British English or Irish English), in accord with WP:TIES policy for Europe-related topics (cited example: Institutions of the European Union). This has priority over first use; WP:RETAIN is a secondary policy which explicitly states that the first variety used can be changed where such regional ties exist. This policy was established for good clear reasons of avoiding the offence caused to people having to read about their local region's topics in an unwelcome invasive alien dialect. Also note just because parsley is cultivated and used in the USA does not make it liable to US spellings, any more than e.g. that Tolkien's books are widely sold and read in the USA would make them open to use of US spellings.

The Parsley article had been very poorly written; failure of earlier editors to follow spelling guidelines (probably by copying and pasting in widely available US public domain text) was only one issue among many others, such as lack of reference citations, and statements that did not match the references that were cited for them. The conversion to English spellings appropriate to the plant's origins following WP:TIES was just a small part of the cleanup and expansion that I did to this article. Had it been an article about a North American species, I would have retained US spellings (and have done so on other articles); however, in this case, it is not.

I see from your contributions that you do a lot of revertions to edits based on WP:ENGVAR; do please remember that within this policy, WP:TIES has priority over WP:RETAIN. There are too many articles where this has been forgotten by too many editors. Thank you, 89.217.211.4 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has no direct (or even indirect) ties to a British (Commonwealth or otherwise) English nation, so WP:TIES does not apply. European English, whatever that is, has no meaning in regard to WP:ENGVAR. You might want to ask for a third opinion. If you check my history, I have made thousands of WP:ENGVAR edits in both directions. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that just because a European topic does not directly include Great Britain or Ireland, that it is open to US invasion, conquest, and subjugation? In the European Union, and also in Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland (where I am based), British English is the standard form of English used, both by the large British expatriate population (remember there is freedom of employment opportunity between countries in the EU; many make use of it), and also very widely as the main lingua franca second language. When for example a German-speaking Swiss and a French-speaking Swiss want to communicate, or e.g. an Italian wants to communicate with a Dutchman, British English is the language normally used. British English is also the standard form of English taught in European schools. American is widely viewed as unwelcome foreign (i.e., non-European) interference. So of course WP:TIES is relevant, as it reflects national and regional usage, identities and wishes.
 * I will certainly seek a third opinion on Parsley, but it will likely be some time before I can find time to do so. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you show some goodwill by follwing WP:COMMONALITY (another important policy, and one that I have not seen you follow at all) and change the inappropriate 'flavor' to neutral 'taste' or 'scent'.
 * Well, as you suggested, I checked your recent history for edits tagged WP:ENGVAR. Of the last 100, 89 were from British English to American English, only 11 from American English to British English, and none to commonality. That is not fair, nor equal, nor just. It strongly suggests that you might have an ulterior motive in your edits - it looks remarkably like tokenism, putting in an occasional pro-British edit to hide the fact of an overwhelmingly pro-American editing behaviour. And of the 89 edits where you changed to American, at least 18 were on pages that should clearly be at either British or Commonwealth English under WP:TIES. Some, possibly many, were also in clear contravention of WP:RETAIN, too; for example Yellowhammer, where User:Blokenearexeter added a paragraph of text about habitat, correctly using British English for this European species. This was later vandalised, which you did not revert (perhaps because it suited your linguistic imperialism?), but you then later not just once but twice reverted editors who corrected this vandalism. And this despite it being obvious from even the briefest of glances at the page that it is about a European species, not an American species, so American spelling has absolutely no justification at all. Hardly a good advertisement for your editing behaviour, and certainly not one that will encourage new editors (apart from US imperialists) to work on wikipedia. Your behaviour has also been getting worse; in one case that I checked (Pomegranate, a page that I knew from my previous visits was in Commonwealth English (as correct for a species native in Pakistan & India), you had long ago correctly reverted someone who improperly changed to American, but more recently you have improperly changed it to American, again a dialect of no relevance to this species.
 * If you wish to be taked seriously as an editor, you need to be far more careful about your edits. 1. Always check the context of the article to see what is the most appropriate English variant according to WP:TIES. 2. Be even-handed. Check the numbers of WP:ENGVAR edits that you do, and make sure that you do not deviate too far from the ratios of US English speakers (~260 million) to UK & Irish English speakers (~65 million) to Commonwealth English speakers (~1,000 million). Only that way will the content of wikipedia begin to approach justice and fairness. 3. Remember that within WP:ENGVAR, WP:RETAIN is the last resort selector for choice of dialect, not the first (this used to be explicitly stated "If there is no established spelling and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor" but was changed some time in mid 2007 without any apparent discussion). 4. Do not assume (as you often appear to) that IP-number edits are vandalism; they are very often legitimate and proper edits, often resolving previous vandalism. Thank you. 84.226.229.41 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to (re)read WP:FAITH. If my edits look biased, it is because most articles were originally started using American English.  If they had been mostly started in British English, then my edits would look biased the other way.  It is quite true that I do not spend hours researching the complete history of an article before making a WP:ENGVAR edit, but instead make a good faith attempt to review significant parts of the history (i.e., the beginning, destubbing, etc.).  Editing for commonality is often easier said than done; far too often the meaning gets changed particularly in regard to the references.  I prefer to leave that type of editing to others who are better at it.  Feel free to edit Parsley for commonality.  You also appear to misunderstand WP:TIES (Strong national ties to a topic) which very clearly says "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation".  Note the word 'strong' in both the heading and the body. Which particular English-speaking nation (i.e., one where the major/national language is English) does parsley have "strong" national ties to?  When you ask for a third opinion, please mention that the discussion took place here and not on the parsley talk page.


 * Referring to my behavior in regard to Pomegranate as "getting even worse" is neither fair nor just. It was nothing more than an oversight on my part.  You are correct that my first edit was correct.  Whenever I make a WP:ENGVAR edit on an article, I always place it permanently on my watch list, so that I don't need to research future ENGVAR edits for that artcle. For future edits, I can simply apply WP:RETAIN which is what I did in my later pomegranate edit, but unfortunately I seem to have somehow missed the edit where the spelling was wholesale changed. I've made my share of innocent mistakes and will no doubt continue to do so, but your comments are coming close to WP:PERSONAL. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I made any unfair comments. To answer your query; Italy, where parsley is indigenous. Italy is an English-speaking nation, and the English spoken there is as I already mentioned overwhelmingly British, not American. Italy is of course primarily an Italian-speaking nation, but that does not preclude it being English-speaking as well; it is also German-speaking, French-speaking, Piedmontese-speaking, and many others. As you say, wp:ties says "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". It does not say "has utterly total, overwhelming, absolute linkage to one single nation where English is the universal and sole official language". 188.155.102.104 (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples given in wp:ties make it very clear as to its intent. Also, parsley is indigenous to multiple countries instead of one particular country, so being indigenous doesn't meet the "strong ties to a particular  English-speaking nation". VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (*** sigh ***) you don't make it easy for a person to stay civil, but I'll try my best despite the exasperation. "The examples given in wp:ties make it very clear as to its intent" - yes, they do, and not as you would wish to suggest. Look at #3, "Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)". That topic, a European topic, very clearly indicates that European topics use British or Irish English (which of course are identical in terms of spelling words like 'flavour'). Also, it covers multiple English-speaking countries, so your limiting it to one country only is manifestly incorrect.
 * Can you clarify please, what are your motives for being so extraordinarily restrictive in your application of wp:ties? With the level of restriction you apply, I can't see that it could ever be used, yet it is (or at least is supposed to be) a major plank of wikipedia policy. Can't you see why wp:ties was implemented, to stop the use of a particular dialect in a situation where it is not appropriate? You are twisting the interpretation of the letter of the policy to limit it so as to completely lose the spirit of its purpose. Why? 178.38.154.66 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire point of WP:ENGVAR is to prevent waste of time discussions like this one. If it is not interpreted strictly, then articles become open to never ending spelling disputes.  The #3 example doesn't mean at all what you claim; it simply means that since English (British/Irish because they are the languages of two of its member countries) is an official language (see List of the names of bodies of the European Union in its official languages) of the various European Union Institutions, that articles discussing those institutions should use British/Irish spellings.  In additional Parsley is native not only to Europe, but also to Africa, so it doesn't fall under #3 even using your meaning.
 * I don't intend to reply further unless a third party gets involved. Just like in one unsettled ENGVAR dispute I've been involved in since August 2008, at some point additional discussion becomes fruitless. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help
Hello VMS Mosaic,

I was wondering how you made your boxes, on your user page. Displaying various interests and such. Please do reply whenever you have time, Thank you in advance. Arvindan T. (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Open my user page (User:VMS Mosaic) in the editor ("edit this page" tab) to see how it's done. Many of the box links are to box templates other editors have created in their own user space.  Please let me know if you have specific questions about how the page is set up. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for you help! Arvindan T. (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bisque/Biscuit at Earthenware
I am happy to assist. This editor has some history on Wikipedia. He has been editing for at least three years and logs on from different IP addresses, including 119.224.22.238, 119.224.1.162, 124.197.14.239, 203.100.212.94, 203.160.123.159, 210.54.238.178, 210.54.238.178 and 219.88.66.111. (Maybe also 203.163.103.7, though this address has a different location.) He can be identified by his location, his knowledge of industrial ceramics, his dislike of studio pottery, his unconstructive edits, his concern to establish "correct" usage (i.e. his preferred usage) and to remove "incorrect" usage, his intransigence in discussion, his providing long lists of sources to back up his POV and disregard of sources that put forward a different POV, and his denial that his posts from different IP addresses were written by him. I am not sure if this pattern of editing makes him a sockpuppet in the Wikipedia sense, and his edit warring usually stops short of 3RR, so he might be difficult to block. It is best not to engage in dialogue with him, because it makes him more aggressive, and preferable to establish a consensus in favour of more balanced treatment of the topics he intervenes in. Marshall46 (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My next step would have been to simply reverse the order of the spellings in the opening, but I wasn't sure that would satisfy him.  Sounds like he is guilty of IP sockpuppetry, but there is probably nothing that can be done about it.   Oh well, just one more editor who has completely missed (or is intentionally missing) the whole concept of NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk)

Spider-Man in film
I have no idea what's going on. I never purposely did the contribution that you undone me from bringing back that word where I have no idea where it came from. All I did is try to undo a edit and it went silly from there. Jhenderson 7 7 7  13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Iodised salt
You commented on the Talk Page of Iodised salt last year asking about the spelling. As the spelling Iodised is wrong in both BE and AE and as there seems to be no opposition to moving it to a page with a correct title, could you explain to me how I can go about changing the title in an article, as I think that this is something that really should be done! Thanks --Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only way to change an article title is to do a move (see WP:MOVE)). However, because the page [[Iodized salt already exists with an edit history, you may need an administrators help (see WP:REQMOVE). VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I think I've set the process in motion!--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Purple
Nice editing - not - and yet again you've missed the first use! The page was originally set up with the BE spelling of colour - but again you've decided to selectively edit to the US English color and not bother checking, just as you did with Raspberry and god know's how many other articles you've essentially vandalised. Rather than just spouting "consistent spelling within article per WP:ENGVAR" on all your edits, why don't you take a second to check out first use, rather than your usual knee-jerk reversion of everything to the US version. I see from the talk page that this is not the first time someone has raised your nationally biased editing and it really is quite boring to have to check out and revert all your silliness.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to read WP:RETAIN for content and actually attempt to understand what it is saying. My edits have all been totally consistent with it. I have been watching Purple for four or five years while keeping the spelling consistent.  Unfortunately, due to illness, months sometimes go by between my checks; when I finally was able to check it again, someone had added several variant spellings.  I have made thousands of WP:ENGVAR edits and have several thousand pages on my watch list that I monitor for variant spellings.  You and several IP editors have started seriously impacting my limited ability to do so. Please desist. VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I won't desist because I think that you are acting improperly in regards to spellings and editing articles to a US spelling where there is no need (ie. outside the scope of either WP:ENGVAR or WP:RETAIN. I will, therefore, be monitoring your edits closely. And seriously, you really shouldn't use seriously in that way...--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to read WP:AGF, and you need to stop the Wikilawyering. The majority of your reverts of my edits have violated the spirit of WP:RETAIN.  I neither have the time nor the interest in Wikilawyering over each of them.  I will simply let things balance out by looking the other way (i.e., take no action when I otherwise would) an appropriate number of times.  So, have your fun watching me all you want, but I do wish you wouldn't because I really do prefer being completely fair. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PMSL - you quote 101 policies at me and then accuse me of Wikilawyering. Take a look at your own actions first, I feel.  Either way I have grave misgivings about many of your edits, which I feel go against both the letter and spirit of a number of the policies you have thrown at me and which I consider not to be fair at all: the upshot is that I will continue to monitor your activities. And, seriously, you need to find another way to start a paragraph!--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply point you to the policy on "assume good faith" when you have repeatedly and grossly accused me of bad faith, and I'm somehow the one being unfair? I change one word in Raspberry which has consistently used US English for at least four years (since before I made my first edit to it) except for that one word, and you have the gall to call me unfair?  The main point of WP:RETAIN is "Retaining the existing variety", with "strong national ties" being the only valid reason for changing an existing variety.  You still appear to seriously miss the entire point.    In fact you appear to miss the whole point of WP:ENGVAR which is to prevent what have been some of lamest edit wars to take place on Wikipedia.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Versions of English
Hi, is there any chance of you two coming to a consensus over which version of English to use? It's just that you seem to heading into the murky depths of an edit war and that of course is no good thing. Please try and talk about it instead of keep reverting each other’s edits. :-) --wintonian talk  edits  11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that he and his three or four IP sockpuppets have been stalking me for a month or so. For several weeks I tried simply ignoring him, but when that didn't work, he started accusing me of bad faith and openly stated he would continue to stalk me.  I am starting to believe he is actually trying to start an edit war.  Take a look at Cigar, Concrete, Raspberry and his complaint here about Purple.  All of them have been US English for years, and there is no justification at all for changing their spellings. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about this account or either of you feel that you need some help to resolve this disagreement then you can raise the issue at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 as appropriate and get the input of the community. --wintonian talk  06:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh....
 * I do not use sock puppets and I would like you to withdraw that accusation.
 * I am not stalking you: I am monitoring your edits, as I find them extremely suspect.
 * The reason these have been US English is that you have edited that way, having reverted against their their first use. I suggest you look to the article on Bock, where there was mixed spelling, but with a preponderance of UK varient (and the first use was UK varient).  In 2008 VMS decided to edit all to the US version, against any particular aspect of WP:ENGVAR and has subbornly edited it along those lines ever since, regardless of the rights or wrongs.  I suggest you look back through the previous postings on this page and archive pages to see the complaints of others on this matter.
 * I agree that I made a mistake with cigar.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Further edited update at --Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a disagreement on how to apply MOS:ENGVAR to various articles, as you know articles should be consistent in their usage of English and this may evolve over time from one version to another and the predominant version should be the one that is used (bar the exceptions) and in the case of a disagreement this should be discussed on talk page(s) of the article(s). Now my spelling is atrocious so I'm going to be no help in this so I propose that one of us pops over to WP:EA and ask if someone who is familiar the various spelling variations is willing to have a look takes part in this discussion – what do you think? --wintonian talk  10:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK for this one instance of Bock, but what about all the others that were (maliciously) changed from one form to another some years ago?--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who did these maliciously dirty deeds? My first edit to Bock changed two words to US English which was the correct thing to do given that the article had contained for some time many (too many to waste the time counting them) US spellings, but only a couple UK spellings.  I have no problem with using WP:EA, but I usually use WP:THIRD.  In the case of Bock, I would happily accept whatever decision is made by a WP:THIRD editor.  I believe if one takes the time to check the other articles mentioned, that in most if not all of them, I only changed a small number of words out of a large number having variant spellings.  I try to avoid major changes because such changes are more likely to spark yet one more lame edit war of which there are already far too many.


 * Given the thousands of WP:ENGVAR edits I have made, I have had a relatively very small number of complaints most of which were made early on when I did make a few mistakes. My talk page history clearly shows this. Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive, if you keep making the major reverts of spellings like those you have recently made, you will only find yourself in more pointless edit wars with other editors.  There are much better ways to spend your time editing Wikipedia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yellowhammer
Please stop trying to Americanise the spelling of the Yellowhammer article. I've reverted the spelling of metre back to BE twice now. This bird is common in the UK and Ireland, and has never occurred in North America. Glancing at the above, it looks as if you have something of a track record for aggressive Americanisation, but trying to change an article with no relevance to the US, but plenty to Europe, is going too far. Please desist.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one (other than an anon) had a problem with my previous four spelling reverts on this article. I believe what we have here is a case of WP:OWN.  Please look in the mirror before falsely accusing others.  You didn't object when you edited the article in 2009 after the spelling was changed to American in 2008.  After a careful review, I see that the article did first use UK English, but it was using American English when I first looked at it (after you had edited it while it was in American English).  Please desist in harassing good faith editors.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone who seems to be a persistent variety of English changer, you seem to have a limited understanding of the policy. It's not just the variety of the first edits, it's whether the variety is appropriate — look at the examples in the policy. Would you leave New York unchanged if the first edits were in BE? I wrote White-breasted Nuthatch, an FA, in AE because it's exclusively NAM. Yellowhammer should be in BE whatever the variety of the first edit for the reason stated above. The Bird project expects articles on European and Indian subcontinent birds to be in BE for the same reason that Bald Eagle would be in AE, whatever spelling the first editor used. How is it harassment to revert an incorrect edit, when your last action was to revert the anon's correct edit (correct on both counts incidentally, first edit and appropriateness)? AFAIK, my only interactions with you were to revert one edit, and post the message above. If that's harassment, you've led a very sheltered life. I've no particular desire to continue this discussion, especially since you see it as hostile, but if you want further clarification of the policy, I'm happy to do that.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite glad that you don't want to continue this discussion because I don't either. But do I have one guestion.  How did someone who grossly violates the rollback usage rules, who has such a poor grasp of the English language that they are completely clueless as to the meaning of "strong tries" and "particular English-speaking nation", and who is even more clueless as to the meaning of "assume good faith" got to be an admin?  The vast majority of admins I have had the pleasure of dealing with are worthy of being one, but you, sadly, are not one of them. Until I encountered you, I used to be able to count the number of bad admins I knew on one finger.
 * And in answer to your offer, why would I ask someone who clearly doesn't understand a policy to explain it to me? VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Coriander

 * Perhaps an image of the leaf of another vegetable would be better? In the case of the current image, we cannot ignore the author (i.e., the image uploader), but I agree that it might not be celery. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Derp Derp
"I remove edits by anonymous editors without considering their content, derp derp." The list of individual labradoodles owned by celebrities is unnecessary clutter, but thank you for mindlessly preserving it.119.201.175.35 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt if your edit explanations are not inflammatory or insulting. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Abuse
Thank you  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Coloration" is British English, surprisingly
Thank you for trying to make Animal Coloration consistently American English and Aposematism consistently British. However, both articles are already in British English, since "Coloration" is, perhaps surprisingly, the native British usage. I've added a note at the top of Talk:Animal coloration to draw editors' attention to this, because the existing discussion is hidden at the bottom of the talk page under a "Move" heading. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wish everybody would get on the same page. See Talk:Iodized salt; I don't have a clue as to who is right since the Commonwealth people can't decide, but we can't keep moving the article back and forth endlessly.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There has already been a detailed discussion on the Talk:Animal coloration page - it is now archived at the bottom of that page - and agreement was reached a) the page remains ENGVAR and b) coloration is the ENGVAR spelling, just as are all the other spellings on the page. It is not our job to resolve all the many contradictions in English spelling (it's a shame about -ized, your're right), simply to do a sensible job on this page. Given the decision on the /* Requested move */ we should now just go along with the decision. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is increasing clear that you don't understand WP:ENGVAR. I cannot revert your complete controvention of WP:ENGVAR in regard to Animal coloration without violating WP:3RR, so I ask that you self revert, otherwise I will be forced to proceed with dispute resolution.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to hear this, and I do hope that we can proceed amicably and intelligently on this matter. To take any heat out of the matter, I am self-reverting the spellings for now, but please allow me to explain how the article has come to be as it is: WP:ENGVAR states under "Retaining the existing variety" (MOS:RETAIN) that "When a variety of English has become established in an article, it should be maintained". The article was originally taken from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which was of course written in British English - for which (silly me) ENGVAR is not a synonym; we then had a discussion about what to do to update the article, and eventually I rewrote it, still in British English, with spellings like "colour" as you correctly noticed.
 * The article was originally entitled "Animal colouration", an obsolete spelling which feels as strange to British ears as to American. However, the modern British English form of the title noun was agreed in the discussion which is archived on the talk page to be "Coloration" - we Brits use many forms of that kind: despite our love for colour, humour, flavour etc, we also write "humorous" and many other somewhat inconsistent spellings, I freely admit. So the article was moved to "Animal coloration", but strange as it will no doubt seem, this was NOT a move to American English but an updating to the modern British English form - I quite understand why this could have caused confusion, but it's certainly in accord with WP:ENGVAR, despite my lack of familiarity with the nomenclature. Since this has been discussed and agreed already, as anyone may readily confirm from the talk page, MOS:RETAIN as well as precedent on the talk page indicate that the page should be left as British English. Like you, I much prefer to proceed by discussion and agreement, which happily is still open to us. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Consistency within articles" is the first rule of WP:ENGVAR: "Although Wikipedia favors no variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently." This gives only two possible options: use either "colouration" or "coloration" but not both in the article (which by definition includes the title). I agree that the article should use British English, but unfortunately it was moved to the spelling "coloration". It is beside the point that it can be spelled both ways in British English because the consistency requirement is that one and only one spelling be used. I'm an American, so I don't know which one is 'more' correct in British English, so pick one and let's move on. If you want it moved back, I can request the move if you want. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if the WP:RM that I requested has caused such a dispute at Animal coloration; I thought that I had provided a sufficiently detailed explanation at Talk:Animal_coloration to clarify that coloration/colouration, unlike color/colour, is not an American–British spelling difference. Having been brought up in Canada, I am well acquainted with both the American and British styles, so when I came across colouration being used in two articles' titles, I thought this could be a suitable opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY. British references make it clear that coloration is the normal British spelling (see Talk:Animal_coloration). Of the major British dictionaries, Chambers, Collins, and Oxford all prefer coloration over colouration, while Cambridge does not even recognize colouration; prominent English usage guides published by Oxford (Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage) only recognize coloration as the British spelling. Of the other major Commonwealth dictionaries (for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa), only Australia's Macquarie Dictionary prefers colouration; however, in the absence of any references in English usage guides about colouration being preferred in Australia—or elsewhere—in actual use (including the Cambridge Guide to English Usage, which usually covers usage in other Commonwealth countries well), I felt that this could be overlooked, particularly because the articles in question are apparently written in British English. Regarding this dispute, per WP:ENGVAR, Animal coloration should be brought back to consistent British English (currently, the confusion has left us with, for example, American color but British haem); however, there is nothing wrong with coloration existing alongside colour under WP:ENGVAR, because both spellings are the norm in British usage. If there is agreement here, I will restore this article to British English per WP:ENGVAR (that is, color → colour, while leaving coloration); alternatively, if required, I will personally use WP:RM to request that the colouration → coloration move that I nominated is reverted to the "status quo ante bellum", but given that colouration is deprecated in British English, this would seem absurd. (The case of -ise/-ize at Talk:Iodized_salt—that is, my request to revert a move that was based on the bizarre assumption that iodise/iodize is somehow an exception to the other -ise/-ize words—is another matter entirely, which cannot purport to WP:COMMONALITY given British usage is divided and usage in a number of other Commonwealth countries is firmly behind iodise.) Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care what spelling is used, but the title must match the article spelling. Period. I'm okay with coloration and colour if that is standard British practice, but we can't have both colouration and coloration in the same article. That makes us all look like a bunch of incompetent fools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Color-related merger discussions
Hello! I've seen you commenting on various color-related AfD's and merger discussions, and thought that you might be interested in taking a look at some of the current discussions for mergers and redirects of color articles. The discussions are located at Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Lion (color), Talk:Camel (color), Talk:Wine (color), Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Flame (color), Talk:Brandeis blue, Talk:Byzantium (color), Talk:Amethyst (color), and Talk:Robin egg blue.--Slon02 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Apple
Just letting you know that I've put up Apple for a good article reassessment since I think it no longer meets the GA criteria. You can comment here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Film Formats
Can you please advise why you have removed my UltraPan8 listing? This is a legitimate new motion picture format, e.g.

http://vimeo.com/27492482 http://vimeo.com/27905787

Regards,

Nicholas Kovats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4kids (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You got the wrong editor. I didn't do it.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Spinning (textiles)
I have reverted the Americanisation of the text in this article which you made in good faith. I believe MOS:RETAIN is the reference. The article is consistent in its use of BR:ENG since I did a fairly complex switch on 1st October. In essense it becamea new article.If you read the talk page you will see what happened. There is a problem in many Textile and industrial articles, where a page was beautifully written 5 years ago from a craft POV. The text is good but impossible to integrate into a page that deals with economics or industrial processes. It is blocking the cleanup of the structure of related articles. To get round this- the craft page needs to be re-named, and a meta-page written for the original title. Spinning (textiles) -> Hand spinning taking all the text. A new page was started on Spinning (textiles) referenced mainly from Collier. Yes a lot more work needs to be done here- but my other major text is published in Bangalore! There is no-one working in the industrial textile field at the moment that uses US spelling- so what is procedure. I see the course of action I took as the right one in this circumstance. This is important because I need to also address the Weaving article when I have referenced up some text for the replacement.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cabbit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (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) 11:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERA
Not arguing with your edit, but are you aware that WP:ERA has been changed and no longer mentions first edit, but "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was mixed. I could either have left it that way or fixed it. Exactly what would you have done? Flipped a coin? I could have done that instead of following the article's history, but using random luck is the fool's way out. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out a change that I hadn't noticed until recently. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that I was more detailed than usual in my edit summary. I knew WP:ERA doesn't talk about the first edit. I was just explaining how I decided which way to fix the mixed usage. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Help please
If you could assist, I would very much like a version of the following file: File:Silhouette robin.svg, that is flipped left-right, in addition to the current version. I don't have the software to do it, and you seem to know about this. JMK (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to download the image and use an image editor (or an image viewer with editing functions) to flip it. Many image editors cannot handle svg images, so you would need to download it as a png image. You can download it as a png by right clicking on the image in your browser and selecting the option (depends on the browser) to save it. Most image editors/viewers have a flip option which will do what you want. If you need the flipped image on Wikipedia, you would then upload the flipped image as a new file. If you need it as an svg image, you would download it by right clicking on the file name below the image and select the save option.


 * If you just need a flipped svg image on Wikipedia, I think I have an image editor which can handle svg images, so I can do it for you if that is all you need. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion in the above paragraph is all I need, flipped left-right. Know how to do it but don't have the software currently. If you could, it would be appreciated. JMK (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All hell is breaking loose at my job, so it may be the weekend before I get it done. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you need it as a transparent svg? I'm able to create a flipped svg version, but it is no longer transparent (and the file size is 1000 times larger @5MB). I do have a flipped png image which is transparent. Would that be good enough? What size will you display the image at?  If you display it enlarged, then I would need to make the png image bigger in order to keep the edges from blurring. Sorry this is taking so long.
 * I don't know if I have access to software which will keep the svg transparent and with a small file size. I can research more if svg is a requirement. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Transparent, flipped svg is required / best, but if at all difficult to produce, don't bother further - it's a nice to have. JMK (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I found software (Inkscape) which knows how to natively handle svg images. I now have a flipped transparent svg image. I will upload it later today. Inkscape is available free for Windows, Mac and Linux. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See File:Silhouette of a Robin DR400 flipped.svg. If I didn't manage to get it licensed right, it might get deleted, but I think it will pass inspection. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is perfect, thanks so much. I included the aternative images under other_versions, and don't think it will be deleted. JMK (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Blue (colour)
I have reverted your removal of the and  tags from Cambridge Blue (colour), as if you actually read the two links, one does not even mention the colour and the other is to the uni it's self and as such is no good for establishing the notability of the colour. Mt king  (edits)  05:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cambridge says it is their color as defined by Pantone. You say they (and Pantone) are wrong? That I must be a complete idiot if I believe the actual authority? That actual, by any definition, cites are to be totally disregarded? Do you understand the meaning of notible? It means nothing more than being supported via reliable cites. You say Cambridge (the actual one and only authority on their color) is wrong? Can you prove that Cambridge is incorrect in labeling this color as defined by Pantone as Cambridge Blue? The cites prove beyond all doubt that Cambridge says that pantone 557C is Cambridge Blue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please revert you edit, you are ignoring a fundamental part of WP:GNG, that the sources need to be independent of the subject, the uni is not independent of it's self. The article therefore needs to have better refs to demonstrate it's notability, both tags are therefore needed. Mt  king  (edits)  13:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added ref from the Hawk's club which is independent from the University (I looked closely at their org chart which shows no relationship). The ref also supports most of the info in the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

List of famous people with blonde hair
Hello, VMS Mosaic. Why did you revert me on this? This is not a See also issue, and, even if it were, these names should not be in the See also section. Refer to Talk:Blond about this. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to looked at what was reverted? You deleted a perfectly good 'See also' section below the list. It was not my job to selectively undo the bad part of your deletion. You won't learn not to make such mistakes if someone always cleans up after you. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the removal we are referring to, I see that I did remove the See also section. But I don't see how restoring an unencyclopedic list, which was easy enough not to restore, can be called cleaning up after me. Having that list in is worse than not having that small See also section. And hardly ever do I make such mistakes. But I usually appreciate your edits, and now I have my answer on this matter. So thank you for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being so irascible, but you managed to catch me both times when my chronic pain was bad. As much as I try not to, I sometimes take the pain out on those around me. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Also, despite my starting the section off with "Hello," I can see how what followed could be perceived as standoffish/confrontational. So no worries. I'm thankful for you being on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Buff (colour)
As someone who regularly edits articles in the colour area, could I please ask for a comment on the following thread: Talk:Buff (colour). Thank you. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the issue has been settled properly for the time being, so commenting now would just be stirring the pot. If it starts back up again, please let me know, and I'll be happy to throw in my two cents. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I think that should be the end for now. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maior (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) 12:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany glass
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tiffany glass, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave a valid reason which was completely ignored. The list is non-encyclopedic (as stated very clearly as my reason in the edit), so I removed it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Concerning your edit to Tiffany glass, the list, in that instance, is an "embedded list".
 * It does not fit the MOS category of Trivia.
 * It is, effectively, a "list of works". It performs the same function as a list of the publications by a particular author, or the list of works by a famous painter. These types of lists are usual in the biographies of artists, in descriptions of their creations and in articles about artistic styles.
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Technicolor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prism (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) 14:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gel pen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opacity (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) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Color balance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Achromatic (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) 02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kvass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic (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) 01:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Semolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savory (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) 11:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gas-discharge lamp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashbulb (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) 13:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tapioca
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Tapioca, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't remember doing it, nor would I have. I suspect what happened is that I accidentally clicked on revert and then immediately closed the browser tab before the revert response came back.  I did the same thing once before a few years back. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pax Romana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Junta (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) 11:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Salt and British English
Why are you converting British English to American English in the Salt article? Salt is an international topic, and I see no reason to prefer one variant over another. Per MOS:RETAIN, "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." Furthermore, you only changed some British spellings to American spellings, so you changed it form a consistent style to an inconsistent one. Please don't do this. – Quadell (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was strictly per WP:ENGVAR, and in particular to WP:RETAIN. If you can show me where American spelling was not the long standing spelling prior to mid October, I will change it back. Some spellings like "aluminium" must use UK spelling (see WP:ALUM). VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't noticed, the article has been substantially rewritten since the 7th. I'm bringing this up for wider discussion at Talk:Salt. – Quadell (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely fail to see what the 7th has to do with anything. It was US English then and remained so until around the 16th. Please also note that the very first edit used mixed spelling, and at some point years ago, the spelling was made consistently American. The question I have is why it is now suddenly being changed to UK spelling. Major changes is not an excuse. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia (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) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mango
Hi. Regarding your reversion and edit summary, the article does indeed contain a mixture of British and American spellings. I agree that it should not, and that needs to be addressed. However, your own edit did nothing to rectify the problem; you left the spelling mixed, merely weighting it more towards the American. As the principal contributor there over the last several years, I seem to recall that it did use consistent British spelling, but it has suffered from innumerable drive-by edits in the meantime, and I haven't been able to keep up with them all. Do you have a specific reason to Americanize the spelling in the article? More to the point, do you intend to revert if I return it to a consistent, non-mixed state? Thanks, Rivertorch (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain where I left it mixed. The fact that it uses metric as primary doesn't matter as long as 'meter" is spelled 'meter'. I have watched this article for years and have a record in the history of keeping it US English.  Of course I'm not perfect, so I may have missed a word, but color, fiber, flavor, etc. are all US English.  Please note that 'grey' is US English.  What did I miss? If you still have an issue, I can start a detailed analysis of the history, but I believe you will not put me thru that time consuming process if you check the first edit which uses US English.  Since you made a fine point of it, if a detailed analysis of the history does show US English, then yes, I intend to revert any edit you make converting it to UK English. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just reread the entire article including image captions as of my last edit. I see nothing which is non-US English. An initial history analysis shows I made the spelling consistent US at 16:53, April 12, 2007. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since my recollection may be faulty, I'm pressed for time, and I trust you, I'll take your word for it. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article; it has been one of the banes of my wiki-existence. Rivertorch (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. If I can't be trusted, then it is time I stopped editing Wikipedia. Time is everyone's bane, but too few realize it until it is too late.  Thank you for trusting me. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/The Truth About Lies (film)
The original version of the article from 2011 was based upon on old and inaccurate source. Further research shows the project began filming December 2013 and is now in post-production. I made corrections/expansions to the article to address the original author's errors and have added a different set of "Find sources" at the AFD. I think the now-better-sourced and improved article. What you think?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A definite improvement. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

More fun
If you enjoy cleaning up articles like Laredo Petroleum, there's a bunch more listed at User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. Many of the listed companies really are non-notable, a few are well-known and any attempt to AFD them would fail, but a few are in the "never heard of it, article doesn't use any reliable sources, but a company with this level of revenue in this industry just might be notable, further investigation is required" category.

When you are done with Laredo, hop on over and see if you can help separate the wheat from the chaff in that list and makes sure the articles about notable companies are beefed up at least enough to deter or survive a deletion nomination. Another editor is working his way down from the top of the list, I'm working my way up from the bottom, so jumping into the middle of the list may be the best way to avoid duplicate effort. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  07:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, FWIW, I believe you nominated Laredo Petroleum in WP:FAITH. Unfortunately, the AFD Nazi's WP:MUST articles they WP:IDONTLIKETHIS far beyond the WP:N a majority of articles have. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with only a few (or even one) RS ref which they have no problem with because they have decided from on high what WP:BELONGs believing they alone know what is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.  One of these overbearing idiots just PRODed an article you just a few days ago spent a good bit of effort on getting WP:GNG.  The same admin is probably right now recruiting other admins to help get Laredo Petroleum deleted.  In other words, it's not fun to expend my effort to no good end.  It's why I believe many experienced editors are running away from Wikipedia as fast as possible, and why very few new editors stick around for more than a short time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm "almost" on "his side" on this. I say that tongue-in-cheek, as I think all 3 of us sincerely think we are on "the side of the project itself" we just don't agree what that is exactly.  This is one of 60+ articles written using what appears to be a common template by a group of about 20+ editors.  The best possible outcome I can see is that the list of 60+ articles is triaged into 3 groups:  1) demonstrably non-notable topic, 2) demonstrably notable topic, and 3) more research is required.  The first group should be dispatched within a week through AFD or PROD.  The second group should be improved upon either in-place or after temporary userfication (I prefer in-place, but if a PROD is allowed to expire, userfication for cleanup is best).  The 3rd group should be either actively researched or, if they are not going to be immediately actively researched, PRODded away until someone asks them to be USERFIED for further research.
 * As for the 20-odd editors, I hope that I and others can help them understand that we appreciate their enthusiasm and that they will accept training and guidance and, a few months from now, be considered productive, valued editors.
 * As for the sad shape of hundreds of thousands of articles (I think you are underestimating here Face-smile.svg) in the project that probably deserve the same fate, I would recommend that if the articles are on likely-notable topics that you beef them up as you have the opportunity to do so, and if they are on topics that are either obviously non-notable or which prove to be non-notable after you research them, that you PROD or AFD them as you notice them. For those which require further research and which you aren't going to research immediately, it's up to you whether you want to research now or nominate them for some form of deletion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the well reasoned reply to what was written while in a bad mood. First, I had no idea I was getting caught up in a group of articles. All I knew was I spotted an article up for deletion which, after only a little research, appeared to be one which could be brought up to speed without a great deal of work. While I agree with what you are saying about the group and how they could be dealt with, to be completely honest, that's not my concern. I'm just working on an article which now, as far as I'm concerned, meets notability per WP:COMPANY. Even if I was concerned about the other 61 articles, the AFD on this one has already taken far too much of my time in order for me to even think about working on another one.
 * As far as other articles without cites, I couldn't remember any, so I randomly clicked about and hit Ore which is at least marked as unreferenced (since 2009); I have seen other articles of similar size with obvious notability (someone just needs to do the work) which aren't even marked as uncited. Then there is the List of minerals where the vast majority of the 750+ articles have (I know because I added many of those links back in 2007) only a couple links to the same one or two web cites and/or one handbook.  Many of the minerals are extremely obscure. Then check out WP:GEOLAND which allows an article for any place that has ever had a name associated with it even if that name appears, for example, in just a couple census as a specific place at any points in history. Being given a Latitude and Longitude by the National Geological Survey is even enough. Yet let an anime article with only two or three reliable refs get spotted and it will immediately be nominated for deletion because it was written by anime fanboys (I've heard that exact excuse far too many times even though I'm not actively involved in editing anime articles). I guess my point is that some editors based on what they think belongs on Wikipedia will require some articles to have a large number of reliable refs documenting every fact, while they look the other way on others.  Somehow I see that as a violation of one of the three Core content policies (i.e., WP:NPOV). Most articles which can pass the cores, also pass WP:NOT, but unfortunately they often  fail WP:IDONTLIKETHIS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some "items of nature" such as well-documented (just on on Wikipedia) minerals tend to get an unofficial free pass on notability, simply because nobody is going to try to make a point by nominating something for deletion that they know will just get "minimally cleaned up enough to pass AFD" during the weeklong discussion period. In other words, the articles stay by "silent consensus" that it's better to have the article as-is and spend valuable Wikipedia editing time elsewhere than it is to take time away from other things to make these articles nominally in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Older articles created back in the day when people were trying to get whole classes of presumably-notable things into Wikipedia (e.g. cities, rivers, minerals, species, etc.) may share this problem.  I think you overstate WP:GEOLAND, as the history of deletion discussions about unincorporated-but-legally-recognized areas such as census-designated-places, named railroad stops, or named post offices, or recognized intra-city areas like named neighborhood recognized by the local city government, is a mixed bag, and those that don't meet WP:GNG frequently close with either "delete," "merge," or "no consensus."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laredo Petroleum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permian Basin (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) 09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Continental Materials Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregate (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) 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Service award progress
Inviting editors to get involved in the review of Template:Service award progress. Thanks! • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I had removed several metal bands from the list of gothic rock bands page. Why? They had already been removed several times for unreliable sources already. - PlagueBearer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.216.97 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have reverted your edits in the past. You appear to be violating WP:NPOV with your removal of properly sourced material. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Could you also comment on these two: Articles for deletion/List of Hannah Montana DVDs & Articles for deletion/List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Home Media releases. Thanks! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Original research
Wholesale deletion of 98% of the article is not the removal of OR material, but instead is WP:POINTy. It is clear that none of these articles will be deleted, so the best course is non-pointy work to improve them. Nonsense. You don't want it deleted because you like it. I don't care anymore so write as much original research and fancruft as you like. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 17:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear that from the way you discuss (using terms like fancruft) the articles, that you don't like it. FWIW, I'm not a fan of the show. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Tenchi Muyo characters page
Hello. I apologise for being a bother, but in preparation for when the block of the page in question is lifted the 31th, and to keep things neutral, might you be willing to handle a bit of a rewrite to hopefully put an end to any disputes about the page? Thank you for your time. David A (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Beyonder insists on inserting "nigh-" in front of "omnipotent", then it may be difficult to properly reword it without introducing OR. It is clear from the OVA that Kami Tenchi could not be more omnipotent. Can't the two of you agree to disagree? You get your way (the correct way) with Tenchi, and he gets his way with Beyonder (correct or not)? Your time would be better spent improving this and other anime articles. If he does add "nigh-" again, I will try rewording it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have let him have his way regarding the Beyonder. However, I don't think that he will show me the same courtesy. David A (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont see where the problem is honestly Nigh is used as a alternate word for near marvel uses both meanings and you said VMS Mosaic he could not be more omnipotent?....i just want actual proof instead of theories by fans and actual proof from the OVA and I even seen the series so many contradictions in itself. Beyonder (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod
 * I have linked to plenty of proof. You choose to ignore it. Tenchi clearly qualifies for omnipotence as Wikipedia defines the word. Personally, I have no problem with liking both characters, and that both can be omnipotent in different ways. One fact does not detract from the other. I have let you have your way on the Beyonder page, could you not show me the same courtesy and finally end this? We have gone around in circles for several months, and for me at least it has been very taxing. David A (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, why don't the two of you put an end to this. There are many more important things needing done on anime articles. I right now am trying to finish my daily Wikipedia editing, and this "angels dancing on the head of a pin" argument is keeping me from it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What proof from the canon do you have that he is not "omnipotent" as opposed to "nign-omnipotent"? There is absolutely nothing at all in the canon that indicates he has any limitations of any nature what-so-ever. You are the one who must prove "near" or "nigh-". Please quote exact passages showing limitations. I have already read all of your comments, none of which show any limitations other than your own personal opinion that he has limitations. Canon clearly states he is infinitely more powerful than the omnipotent beings who created all of existence, and that he has the power to end all existence. It's not possible to be more omnipotent than that. Please don't say anything about Beyonder because he does not exist in regard to this discussion. Also, would both of you please learn to use ':' to indent comments. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying Wikipedia is factual is highly not true many people even old staff regard Wikipedia as a free public domain then a actual fact also saying he is "Infinitely more powerful than the omnipotent beings who created all of existence." Isn't factual its not a fact as he is above Nigh-Omnipotent beings aka the 3 Goddesses where they was also put into a actual "Corner" in fear of the counter actor as I can also say Z was a potential to being the supreme being and maaaany characters have erased existence and they aren't considered "Omnipotent" not even once I can even say also nigh is another alternate word for near it isn't hard to understand that this discussion is always the same post actual OVA facts then Wikipedia content I will wait as I have provided scans for Beyonder so I will wait for scans of Kami tenchi being omnipotent as in marvelverse they have different levels of infinities and was shown with Kubik and Kosmos. Beyonder (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod
 * I am trying to be reasonable, but you keep stating unrelated nonsense which makes it hard. What little I can make out from the above is pure WP:OR which has no meaning in this discussion or the article. The facts from the 'Tenchi canon' (i.e., not Wikipedia facts) state the three goddesses are omnipotent (as stated by them) and that Kami Tenchi is infinitely more powerful than the three goddesses. THOSE ARE THE FACTS which have already been scanned into the various discussions here. How many more times do you want them scanned in? Please quit talking about "marvelverses" and "Beyonder" because they are completely meaningless/irrelevant in this discussion. What you consider to be omnipotent has absolutely no meaning here. The only thing that has meaning is what is actually stated in the Tenchi OVA, PERIOD. Please stop talking about your own personal opinions. They mean nothing here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong bro character statements must be PROVEN right? The chousin proven they aren't OMNIPOTENT as if a being aka The Counter actor can put them in a corner also the fact you think being infinitely means anything MAAAAANY beings like i said has been stated to be like this does it prove what they say? I mean the narration didn't say he was omnipotent the chousin didn't say he was omnipotent but he is above THEM hell please show me SCANS of them in the other series please because if they exist in 1 ANIME OVA they aren't in all making the series a entire Retcon! Even when you think about it they have many contradictions which has been confirmed.
 * The chousin stated they was omnipotent,omnipresent, and omniscient? Yet they was in a corner
 * They creates exist as CONFIRMED nigh-omnipotent beings
 * Kami tenchi didn't exist before existence
 * Kami Tenchi tenchi in the OVA states he needed a vessel strong enough for him to awaken
 * Z was a potential
 * Kami Tenchi/3 Goddesses hasn't been shown in other OVA realities.
 * Kami tenchi biggest feat was size manipulation
 * The chousin had beings on higher dimensions

See my point?? STATEMENTS don't mean anything without feats so again I will actually wait for actual PICTURES from the OVAS and a screen shots of the creators actual statements via videos/images. Beyonder (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod
 * Please fucking learn to indent (as I have previously asked) if you are going to comment on my talk page. Actual pictures have been posted. Exactly how many times do you need to see them? Are you blind or what? Why can't you accept that in the Tenchi fictional universe, that that fictional universe defines omnipotence to be exactly what that fictional universe defines omnipotence to be? A fictional universe is the sole authority on the meaning of any and all concepts including omnipotence. Even a two year old is capable of understanding that. Why are you unable to do so? Your personal definition of omnipotence has no more meaning here than a steaming pile of cat shit. Sorry for being blunt, but you appear to be unable to understand a logical presentation of the facts. All you appear able to do is to repeat the same meaningless bullshit over and over regardless of what anyone says. David A, I apologize for bringing Beyonder into this discussion on my talk page. It is one of the most stupid things I have ever done. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. It seems that me and him have finally come to an agreement to stop this (I sincerely hope). Given that I admittedly did a poor job with the controversial sections in question, and that you are evidently more intelligent and well-acquainted with Wikipedia procedures than I am, would you be interested in rewriting it so that the text turns more acceptable? David A (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The current prose is a little too detailed and excessively in-universe, but it is probably best to leave it as is so as not to start another argument. In any case, I am not a prose editor. If another argument does start up, please let me know because it might be weeks or longer before I would see it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was thinking of trying to compress the text to at least avoid the excessive repetition. Do you think that it would be acceptable if I did so, or would I get in trouble again? David A (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be fine by me, but you are the one who knows best what might start another argument. My main goal here was to end the war. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think/hope that he has lost interest, but I will try to do inoffensive cosmetic changes. Thank you very much for all of your help. David A (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Choushin were only in a corner because of Tenchi's power starting to awaken.
 * They did not create Kami Tenchi, they stated that the entity created them. They were trying to prove its existence.
 * "Kami Tenchi" did not state anything of the sort, so that is a blatant lie.
 * The Choushin goddesses were worshipped as deities in the parallel universe series "War On Geminar", and the other parallel universe series "Dual" has alternative universe counterparts in the official Tenchi GXP novels.
 * Kami Tenchi was explicitly stated to be far more than infinitely greater than the Choushin, and its' untrained shadow almost automatically destroyed all of existence. The burden to prove that he has any limitations whatsoever lies on you alone.
 * The Choushin only had 1 being higher than themselves. Apparently one even more dimensionally boundless than they were ststed to be.
 * I have let you have your way on the Beyonder page. Can't you really just let this go, so we never have to deal with each other again? Or have you just been doing this for half a year to deliberately relentlessly try to piss me and other people off, and evoke hurt feelings, as you have stated elsewhere? David A (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Not butthurt you are the emotional one not me lol I can careless I am here for facts.
 * 2. Not trolling not even near if you believe I am then you need help.
 * 3. You didn't let me anything I proved scans of primary sources regardless.
 * 4. When people start to state the same reasons I have and you can't prove them right dont mention me ok. Beyonder (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod
 * Well, you have been doing this to me for half a year running. What am I supposed to think?
 * But I have attempted to avoid mentioning you recently, according to our previous agreement. (?)
 * In any case, if I understood you correctly on the Tenchi Muyo Characters Talk page, you have now agreed to leave it alone, which is all that I have asked for. The Internet is a big place. I am sure that we can try to avoid each other. Thank you. David A (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tenchi discussion has started again with a new editor
Feel free to take a look and offer your opinion. Thank you for your time. David A (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If he makes no more comments, then I won't stir the pot. A word of warning: attracting attention to any anime article is an invitation for a lot of editors to try having it deleted just as the latest editor talked about as a possibility. There is only so much I can do if you attract the attention of the anti-anime cabal (many believe that anime is useless trivia if not actual trash). For example, I tried hard to save the Light Hawk Wings article, but too many of the cabal got involved once someone put it up for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I figured out as much. I had no choice during the conflict with the other user, but since it hopefully seems to be over, I have now removed the attention tag for the article. David A (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dodger blue
You recently reverted some edits I made to Dodger blue, changing "Web" to "web". May I direct your attention to an example of a page maintained by W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium: http://www.w3.org/Amaya/. Read the first couple of paragraphs and note the orthography used there. Why do you suppose they consistently capitalize "Web" in that context? Do you think the people who set the standards for the World Wide Web might know something that self-styled editors of the Wikipedia Manual of Style do not? — QuicksilverT @ 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the MOS is primary. See Lego for an example where the company's style is completely ignored by very strong consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a few minutes to review something?
Hello. I'm currently engaged in several back-and-forth edits with a few users on a company page that you have reviewed, when it was nominated for AFD. The page in question is Sageworks. I've reached out to a few others with this message, since you all are familiar with the page in question.

My view is that these editors have a clear WP:COI and grudge against this company, and are making uncited, unsubstantiated claims, in violation of several Wiki policies (ED, WORDS, NPOV, etc). I can make a case for why I think I'm right, but I'm also a new editor, and I could be totally off. I was hoping you might be open to taking a few minutes to review the page to ensure that these editors are not in violation, or if I'm doing something incorrectly (I'm certainly open to that possibility as well). Either way, I think it could benefit from the attention of someone like you. Right now, it's a bunch of new editors (including two who have a track record of borderline disruptive editing, and another who appears to have created an account solely for the purpose of editing the page). I'm hoping you could dedicate a few minutes to reviewing this page, and the edits made. Thanks so much, and I understand if you can't get to this. --77 woodmont (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've posted the following to any participants in the AFD who weren't already invited:
 * "Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity."
 * And if you do participate, could you humor me and make a statement whether you have any association or not with the company, in the Talk page section about that, please? -- do ncr  am  23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch
On the Sageworks article I was accused of having a COI, but didn't actually. However, the reason for the allegation was that I do have a disclosed COI on other pages, such as this one about a marginally notable CEO of a major pharmaceutical company. About a week or two ago I suggested some edits here using the Request Edit template and I was wondering if you had any interest in taking a look.

I'm always on the lookout for editors to collaborate with on pages where I have a COI that I have not previously worked with, to avoid any appearance of canvassing editors that tend to support my edits or have pro-COI point-of-views. If you do have time to take a look, I'd encourage you to check out some of the other discussions first. It's been a bit of a battleground page - not representative of the experiences I've had on most pages.

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I live in Morgantown where it is hard to avoid things named after Milan Puskar, went to school at WVU and work at an organization sharing a drive way with the Morgantown factory where I was the liaison to Mylan during the driveway construction. Also, I voted against her father at every possible opportunity, and Mylan was founded in my home town. So I'm probably not the most neutral editor in regard to her. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone could say the same about me, or about most editors for that matter, who usually have some kind of opinion or vested interest in the subjects they edit on. And it often provides a good balance to have editors with opposing slants that can work together in good-faith. Unless your opinion of her is so strong, that you feel it would just be frustrating to work on her page and you wouldn't be able to follow the sources if they conflict with your viewpoint. Anyways, I'll keep poking around for someone in case. CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sageworks logo.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sageworks logo.jpeg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was recently replaced with a png, so it can be deleted immediately. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Assurant Employee Benefits
Hey VMS Mosaic, thanks for taking the time to review my proposed deletion of Assurant Employee Benefits. I agree that a redirect would be better--did you have a chance to look at the talk page? I initially proposed the same, but given my COI I don't think that I should (or can?) be the one to institute this change. If you've got the time, could we collaborate on this merge, or at least help me figure out how to get the ball rolling here? There's also a few changes I'd like to make to Assurant (in addition to this potential merge), namely just updating their corporate governance and financial info in the infobox, and I'm always looking for collaborators. FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.
Dear 'VMS Mosaic', I wanted to express my gratitude to you for your helpful intervention at Articles for deletion/Live from Patrick Street. Regardless of the fate of my article, I will always appreciate your willingness to act in support of a fellow editor, as we all strive to improve our encyclopedia. Thank you once again for your thoughtful assistance. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 10:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mareco Broadcasting Network
You have removed the PROD template from the article. Any objections to the deletion? 121.54.54.171 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles of that type/nature often pass being AfDed, so this article should be AfDed if you believe it needs to be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RISE Project (2nd nomination). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Esquivalience t 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally, I somehow manage to remain cool, but he insulted me first. If he hadn't acted like a complete asshole, I would not have left that comment. You on the other hand are acting like a gentleman, so your comment is appreciated. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Book deletion nominations
As you are experienced editor, I would like yo ask you why you keep nominating articles for deletion that clearly meet WP:NBOOK? Secondly, I would like to ask what you define as a 'trivial' review? Indeed non-trivial is defined at WP:NBOOK - 'Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable'. Publishers Weekly or The Guardian are not trivial, and if two reviews exist, according to WP:NBOOK the book is notable. Lastly, I would like to ask if you are aware of WP:BEFORE concerning checks processes to follow before nomination an article for deletion? Best wishes AusLondonder (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, of the two books I nominated, I see nothing which justifies them not being deleted. I am unconvinced that the Nero Award is nothing more than a 'very minor' award. Your opinion of trivial is not an opinion I share. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by your description of WP:BKCRIT and the clarification of non-trivial as my 'opinion', given the fact I took the description from WP:NBOOK here. I respect you as an experienced editor, however I am very surprised you didn't know this before nominating these articles and contributing a 'strong delete' argument to another while wasting a great deal of time. AusLondonder (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only time I've wasted is my own. My 'strong delete' would still be a strong delete if the book did not have two completely different titles which the article creator failed to mention even while citing a source with the completely different title. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * City of Sin was notable anyway. I would like to ask you if you are complying with step D (Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability) at WP:BEFORE before you are nominating articles for deletion? AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no credible sources were there to be found. Even Tokyogirl79, who no doubt spent a lot of time scrapping the bottom of the barrel, was only able to find some pretty dubious stuff which only technically meet WP:NBOOK (which has got to be the worst notability standard on Wikipedia). VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to change policy then you have to argue against this at the appropriate venues. Newspapers have long since been considered reliable sources as are reviews in places considered to be RS. If you want to change NBOOK to where reviews are no longer usable as sources for notability then you need to argue against this at the appropriate boards. I'll warn you though, it'll be near impossible to persuade people to consider newspapers as unreliable and to argue that reviews aren't usable. Heck, even trade reviews are still considered to be usable per the guidelines. Nominating articles for deletion and arguing that reviews and newspapers are unusable isn't really going to change anything. It's extremely rare that an AfD will create a new policy- at most all they do is spark discussion and even then those usually do not go anywhere because of how large of a consensus is needed to change any of the policies on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See my reply to you elsewhere. While I agree that WP:NBOOK technically allows reviews on a newspaper editor's blog to be considered RS, I do not believe that the policy was ever intended to be misunderstood or used that way. Given that being technically correct is the best kind of correct (see Futurama episode 24), I am already yielding where newspaper blog entries have been used. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose that you voluntarily cease nominating books for deletion, and nominating anything without completing step D at WP:BEFORE AusLondonder (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose that you voluntarily cease creating articles which require a significant amount of WP:BEFORE work. Why do you keep creating articles which are not properly sourced? If you did proper sourcing, you would not be wasting so many other editors' time cleaning up your mess. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Every article has had AT LEAST two sources, per WP:BKCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible for me to more serious. The Amazon source was a complete joke. I would be ashamed if I had tried to use it. The only reason any of your articles are passing AfD is that someone else is doing a lot of work to properly source them. If you want your articles not to be AfDed, you need to start putting in the work required instead of expecting others to do it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG also rightly allows newspaper articles. p.s. re above comment "...if the book did not have two completely different titles which the article creator failed to mention even while citing a source with the completely different title." it took me all of 30seconds of a google search to see that it was published under two titles. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have suspected it was the same book, but I didn't. I did not go into it looking for them being the same book. What I saw was two very different titles published in different years. I am not a mind reader, nor does Wikipedia expect me to be one. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Io (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Io (Dungeons & Dragons) 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/Io (Dungeons & Dragons) 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bellevue, Mississippi
My apologies. An editor had delsorted this discussion into an obviously improper category. I was trying to remove that. For my future edification, how should I have handled that. I certainty didn't intend to remove the entire discussion! John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Follow the link in the AfD to the list (in this case WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups) and remove the article entry from that list. Then remove the link from the AfD. I went ahead and removed it from the list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge Tolkien Society
You recently removed the prod tag I placed. Your edit summary suggest that there may be good coverage in two or more books. Could you tell me which books they were so I can take a look? Thanks. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year VMS Mosaic!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! VMS Mosaic, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages. Dear VMS Mosaic, Thank you once again for all your helpful assistance, and for everything else that you do in support of our encyclopedia. I wish you a great New Year in 2016! With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Thanks for joining! Below is the new project newsletter that was sent out to members a few hours ago. North America1000 00:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

St. Paul American School - Clark
Hi! I proposed the above article for deletion, and that message was removed by you, and you drew my attention to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - thanks, I wasn't aware of that policy.

As per that policy, high school articles are normally not subject to deletion, as long as there is an independent source to support it. My only problem is that I'm failing badly when I try to find a non-primary and reliable source for this article. I'm guessing that as you removed the deletion message, you already checked for a source, so could you please add it to the article? thanks in advance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi : A recent edit you performed here has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 15:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Girl in cake
I noticed that you are one of the leading editors at Cake. Do you know if we have an article or content in a section of another article for the type of giant cake from which a model pops out for festive occasions (e. g. this video)? I understand that these are sometimes made largely or entirely of cardboard and frosting, but sometimes there is a real cake outside of the hidden compartment. I have tried surprise cake, pop cake and popup cake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know of any. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of colors: N–Z, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xanadu. 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) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

MfD nomination of User:VMS Mosaic/Sandbox
User:VMS Mosaic/Sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VMS Mosaic/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:VMS Mosaic/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello VMS Mosaic! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  20:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Corporate logo M&#38;C LLP.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Corporate logo M&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Open letter
Hi.

I would like to thank you for your arguments several years ago in favor of retaining two articles I started (some others helped write) for Bing Crosby country albums.

It is my belief that these pages were wrongly removed, and I now have concrete sources indicating the recordings charted, as well as reviews from Billboard magazine. Those points, in addition to their being Bing Crosby albums, should constitute the notability guidelines for music on Wikipedia. Not only that, but there are holes in an otherwise complete discography.

I've recently re-entered a cycle of article creation and would like to go about remaking these pages (and also another album called Blue of the Night), but I wouldn't want to cut open any old wounds. I'm only trying to act in good faith and follow Be bold. The main two editors who removed the article are not active here anymore, although some who argued against retaining the information still are.

Given your experience, I'd thought I'd ask - How should I go about this?

Much appreciated, – (Utzdman55 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of File:Laredo Petroleum corporate logo.png


The file File:Laredo Petroleum corporate logo.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Superseded by File:Laredo Petroleum, Logo 2022.svg"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 07:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laredo Petroleum corporate logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Laredo Petroleum corporate logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Heathkit Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Heathkit Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)