![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The ANI trip was completely predictable. You can't even conceed that trying to close a RfC after a couple of hours is hasty, can you? Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift36 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
I found your last response to be encouraging and I think there is still hope that this can be resolved in a way that both of us find acceptable. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the award, and for all the good work you are doing. Emargie ( talk) 01:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
User Went against consensus again and i Reverted and handed out a warning, i think these are the proper way to continue dialogue if he reverts again. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 02:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi SaltyBoatr, I just reinserted the reference to the teachings of the Christian church in the Hutaree article. I think I reworded the reference a little more neutrally from the last reference. I was wondering if you could please review, and if possible, comment on my reversion. Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you revert our new friend? I'm at three reverts already or I'd do it myself. The admins were kind enough to semiprotect the article for a few hours to help us get him talking. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering the current edit war, do you want the 2A article locked? If so, I'll make the request as a neutral party. SMP0328. ( talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the John Burch society Immunize ( talk) 14:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Though we may disagree on specific aspects of how Hillary Clinton's relationship with Media Matters should be handled. I appreciate your fair-minded and thoughtful approach to the subject. Regards. Badmintonhist ( talk) 20:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if you could tell me how to make a proper complaint about these editors.-- 81.100.215.14 ( talk) 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you think "far right" means? TFD ( talk) 05:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In 1962, Time Magazine said, "The far right ranges all the way from the respectable conservatism of a Barry Goldwater to the vicious lunacy of the American Nazi party. [1] As you can see this was about the time the term entered the language with this usage. [2] Time explained the "far right" in the same way social scientists had explained the "radical right" in the 1950s. Unfortunately the term far right also continues to be used in the narrow sense to refer to fascists. The article clearly distinguishes among Goldwater conservatives, Birchers and fascists.
The real concern here is that we provide meaningful information. Whichever terminology we use, we must convey meaning to the reader. If we say they are part of the far right then the reader must know in what sense we are using the word. My preference is for unambiguous language.
TFD ( talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page.
Thank you, AGK 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by
MediationBot, on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Gun laws in the United States (by state) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.
Thank you, AGK 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello SB. Wondering why you're not agreeing to mediation of this article. Paties fr/ both sides have agreed. It's the Wikipedian thing to do. Tapered ( talk) 05:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the edit you made totally unobjectionable but I am sorely puzzled to understand what you meant by the edit summary. Can you elaborate please?-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at the current FNC thread about changing the lede. Thanks. - PrBeacon (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted this text at the talk page
I did not do so to be obstructive but to ask you, as kindly as I can, to please make the comment under the subheading(s) that I have provided. If people comment higgledy-piggledy all over the place it will be hard for us to make progress. Its NOT that I don't see your point. I know it seems like I am expressing opinion without facts but we can only get to the core issues of you focus on my core issues. If you have a statement to make about my "facts" not being supported, kindly indicate which "facts" it is that you are talking about. Are you talking about the English Bill of Rights "granting" a right. That, in your "stable" version of the article is not supported by a secondary reference but a reference directly to the text (albeit re-published by a university). This is a classic example of why it is dangerous to cite primary sources and interpret them directly. I know I will have the same issue when we get to the context but I'll face that issue when we come to it.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
We may not be in agreement, but I wish everyone could discuss as rationally and civilly as you do, in what can be a fairly heated arena as politics. Kudos! |
Arakunem Talk 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
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 Wikipedia: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. — DoRD ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not the arbiter of process and you should not act as though you are. It is not normal practice to perform edits in a Sandbox.No other user engaged in your practice of editing there. The idea of the ´freeze was to get some issues into the open and get a feel for where we agreed and disagreed. If you attempt to force this into a 3RR situation I will report your behaviour ummediately to an Administrator. I have reflected your wish that we express that Malcolm's position of there being a growing development of rights is expressed in the article and quite prominently and early on. However, it is just one view and the counter view, expressed by lawyers on the Supreme Court as well as others is given an equal airing. If you wish to edit the article, please do so from the point of views that emerged during the article freeze. I don't want that time to have been a complete waste. Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to compliment you and User:The Four Deuces on both of your recent discussions regarding the recent McDonald court decision. I haven't always agreed with your edits, but I have no doubts about your integrity, and when you make edits, I cannot refuse to listen. I left the same edit on TFD's page too. Shadowjams ( talk) 10:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you ever figure that Sean Novack and I would be the ones fighting people to not have the Brady Campaign called a "hate group" by a tide of POV editors? We've even been called "anti-gun activists" because of it. LOL. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello SaltyBoatr, I am mediator Bobby122 from the Wikipedia Mediator Cabal. I will be your mediator for the dispute on this page. Am i correct when I say that the problem is that the Anonip and User:Hauskalainen will not provide references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby122 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why you're writing me about this now. The Chowbok bot hasn't removed that symbol since January, which was before you pointed out on the talk page that it was being used for ironic purposes.— Chowbok ☠ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi SaltyBoatr. I am more than happy to help trim the article of original research and I want I really want to see a compromise that makes the article factual, neutral, and palatable to both opposing view points. Could you point out some of the sections, statements, or references that you believe constitute original research? Movementarian (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Salty. Would be honored to. See my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would present my comments here since I am having a hard time following the multiple discussion threads and lengthy debates on the article's talk page. My understanding of Cramer is that he says the right to keep and bear arms derived from common law, and therefore can be used as a source for that opinion in the article. unfortunately, he does not provide a great level of detail, and his arguments are not persuasive. His mention of Coke does not seem to be supported by the passage cited. (See Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt) and does not address Malcolm's comments on Blackstone. His comments on the Laws of Cnut are interesting, although he does not mention whether these laws remained valid following the Norman Conquest. Missing from his work is how the right to bear arms was interpreted in the American colonies, which had received English law and were subject to the Bill of Rights 1689. I would like to see a better defense of the view that the right existed in common law, but perhaps no one has written about this. When the U. S. Bill of Rights was written however they would have seen Blackstone as an authority, so the issue of whether the right existed before he wrote the Commentaries would not have been an issue. TFD ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the report at WP:AN3#User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:71.184.184.238 (Result: ). Though it's unclear if you've technically broken 3RR in the last 24 hours, the extremely rapid pace of your edits might be interfering with the progress of the article, so it approaches the point of edit warring. (You have a total of 655 edits to the article). I am more confident that the IP has broken 3RR in the last 24 hours. I propose a solution in which you voluntarily agree to stop editing the article for one month. If I'm the closer of the AN3, I would also most likely impose one month of semiprotection, which would also stop the IP from editing for the same length of time. I'm not challenging your good will, since you have good participation on the talk page. You may possibly be unaware of the degree to which your extremely-rapid editing inhibits others from working out solutions. Others on the talk page do hint that you are trying to dominate the page, and it's hard to totally disagree with them. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
An editor has complained that you are edit warring on this article. See WP:AN3#User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Miguel Escopeta (Result: ). You have made five reverts in 30 hours. An admin might consider this to be reason for a block. If you respond to the report, and especially if you agree to wait for consensus before restoring the POV tag again, you may be able to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see
Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --
tariqabjotu
23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC 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. Hey Mid ( contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
UOJComm ( talk) 23:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What's distinctive about it? Viriditas ( talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello SaltyBoatr. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited American Legislative Exchange Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UPS ( 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) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
As one of the people involved in the dispute over whether or not a non-free image can be used at Kim Jong-un, do you agree with what I've written in the above page about Hammersoft's behaviour in his opposition to one? Does this match your perception of him? If so, would you be prepared to be co-certifier of that request for comment? Krolar62 ( talk) 01:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Per these contributions, [7] please be advised of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history. I'm not claiming you personally had any statement about this, but I wanted to post the identical thing on every editors' talk page so please do not take it personally. "You" refers to anyone who disputes the reliable sources I have posted below. (And in fact, I don't think "you" dispute them at all.)
The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.
In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.
“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.
“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.
Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”
OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:
- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)
- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)
- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)
All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.
Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.
Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.
Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.
My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.
An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.
Further sources:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)
GreekParadise ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Second Amendment to the Constitution".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Deleted Third Party Opinion RequestI recently issued a third party opinion request. It was quickly deleted on the grounds that the page on which I was disputing has an open DRN, and that my request for a third party opinion was "inappropriate." The DRN was issued by a different user for a different purpose. My request was for a specific exchange with a specific user. I also don't see any text on the third party opinion request page that indicates the tool cannot be used where there is an open DRN. I was appreciate any thoughts or experiences you might have in this regard. Thanks, Inijones ( talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC) March 2013
File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description detailsDear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers. If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description detailsDear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 16:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.Please feel free to comment. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise ( talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this. GreekParadise ( talk) 04:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) drJust in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Nomination of List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition for deletion![]() The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition 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. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) September 2013
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please stop making accusations on the talk page. We are actively discussing your concerns, additional attacks are un-needed. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Topic banConsensus has developed on the Administrator's noticeboard to topic ban you from firearms related articles and article talk pages. Please cease editing articles related to firearms for 6 months or you may face further blocks and an increased length to the topic ban.--v/r - T P 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description detailsDear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)ALECHi there. I have a favor to ask of you regarding this edit you made back in April 2012 on American Legislative Exchange Council. You added a book reference to a sentence that was already in the article, and quoted a passage from the book in the ref. It appears to me that our sentence isn't fully supported by the passage, particularly the bit about "best practices." I know this is reaching way back, but can you tell me if the quote represents the full source language for the statement, or is there something more than that? If the latter, I don't suppose you still have that book and can post all of the relevant source language? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 12Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrapin Crossroads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Rafael ( 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) 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description detailsDear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 04:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Hi, RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey![]() Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers! This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis) Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016. Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{ User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings. Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC) File source problem with File:AS-19 iso.png![]() Thank you for uploading File:AS-19 iso.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |