User talk:Mardus

Welcome!

Hello, Mardus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist / Holla @ me!

Mardus, I think we've working toward the same end on the Foreign Aid section. I am ready to publish my version. Do you mind if I do so and then you can work out the diffs if you've got something different/better? Thanks. Chris 14:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Chris. I was blocked for a short time and tried very hard not to feel like a dick. Now, this statement made me laugh out. I failed in trying to not feel like that, so I actually went on to make myself ready to go out and buy some chocolate for consolation....
  

I contacted one of the admins who sent a message to me through an IP-based talk page (While I was blocked, I was forced to use an open proxy to access it) and explained him/her that I was working in good faith and not attempting to vandalize the page. I was busy fixing some of the minor mistakes a few days earlier and also proposed dividing the Criticisms section into subsections. Now that I can access wikipedia again, I feel like a happy man again.

Talk:Russia#Russia.27s_opinion_on_Kosovo.3F

I replied to you there. --PaxEquilibrium 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered you at Talk:Moscow Does not Believe in Tears. Geevee (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could you please vote again on a preference for the article name on the talk page? your input could very much help to reach a consensus. thanks!!Anthonymendoza 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! enochlau (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just saw the quick addition and deletion from Ellington. Then you made a comment on Talk:Ellington, Northumberland. I checked it out and found that the redirect from the dab page's talk page to the town had never been erased. I assume you had meant your post for the dab page rather than the town's page? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. -Mardus 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've erased the redirect. It was there because once upon a time the article about the town in Northumberland resided at that name. When it was moved, whomever made the page into a dab neglected to erase the redirect from the talk page. Anyway, as I said, I've fixed it now. Do you want to move your comments to the correct page? I think it'll just confuse the folks in Northumberland. :-) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I move the comments by cutting them from the Northumberland talk and then pasting them into Ellington dab talk or is there some other way, too? -Mardus 03:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting and pasting is the way to go. Just be sure to explain what you're doing in the edit summary. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unsure about redlinks and whether to create them for titles of old films. I have also removed and fixed my share of redlinks, while still not sure if I have created more redlinks into articles than I have fixed or removed any. I do feel that there must be some kind of a balance between the two at least...

One way to gauge whether redlinks are useful is to check if any have existed before my additions with What Links Here. At least if one is there, then this should be a sure-fire way to add more into relevant articles.

I was thinking then that if there was no redlink at all for a movie, then it should not be added.

I've been reading Wikipedia talk:Red link#Redlinks useful? and am unable to make up my mind about all these arguments.
-Mardus 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I was editing an actor page which has quite an extended filmography (actor pages are usually filled up with filmographies copied from the IMDb and then reformatted).

My personal opinions about these filmographies is that actor's pages should rather have selected filmography lists based on existing articles in Wikipedia... Just as well, if there is a redlink already in existence, it does not appear to be any harm in adding another one into another article... I think the point would then be not to create new redlinks that have a very low likeliness of getting their own article.
-Mardus 09:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought I had is that if there there might as well be no need to summarily create redlinks in articles that I am not thoroughly editing anyway, even if these redlinks have more than one to several articles that already link to them.

I also think that redlinks are useful for disambiguation purposes. For example, if a relatively short article about an actress contains numerous redlinks to films and some of them are blue and link to pages that are not about films, then it's duly useful to fix those Wikilinks and make them redlinks of the type "Film title (film)" or "Film title (year xxxx film)". This may create more redlinks in the end and perhaps even a disambiguation page (provided it contains numerous blue links already), but these new redlinks would still link to the right place.
-Mardus 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While What Links Here is a useful tool to gauge requests for an article that is at that time redlinked, then the most useful way for the user to do it would be by adding just one redlink to his/her article of interest.

For example, a redlinked article has two articles that refer to it and these two articles were written and given redlinks to by two differnet users. There are other two articles (among several others) that use exactly the same text as the redlinked article (a movie title is one such example) and a user is doing major edits on one of them. To guarantee impartiality, a user can add necessary redlinks to that article only and not make similar redlinks to other articles that contain exactly the same text that can be used for the redlink, unless they are editing other articles as thoroughly as their primary article of the moment.

The exception to the rule is only when other users have created wrong redlinks that are ambiguous and/or link to irrelevant articles and in which case these redlinks mut be fixed. Alas, this form of action can be manipulated by malicious users that make use of sockpuppets.
-Mardus 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering if you'd take a look at my talk and user page. You seem like a respected user, so your expertese would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Madrus 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on A4Tech, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of A4Tech and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:World Trade Organization (WTO). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:7desktop.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction of the grammar errors on the page :-) - Justin545 (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you still interested in adding notable deceased hosters to the Comparison of free web hosting services? As you can see on the talkpage, I've made a suggestion for another worthy candidate. --79.193.49.126 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy the work that you do! It's far more than I am able to do at the moment. You're so precise with your attention to detail. Hopefully, I'll keep learning at a nice pace and gain as much knowledge as you have. :) Teammm (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how you plan to improve that template... but I do wish to point out that the reference link to the system requirements for Firefox is broken. I fixed it in the normal template. Wrldwzrd89^talk 13:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Nokia Lumia 800, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PC World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ml:സംവാദം:ഉബുണ്ടു#References. --Praveen:talk 06:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Style guidelines.2FLong names. Thanks. 67.101.7.242 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help adding and cleaning up references in articles!—Entropy (T/C) 06:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carmen Ortiz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my changing from {{recentism}} to {{current}} was not done in bad faith, and issues around recentism are new to me, while I just found some aspects of it rather useful. See also Talk:Carmen_Ortiz#Possible_edit_dispute. -Mardus (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for uploading File:Firefox18.png

Do you know an unknown foolish person have replaced your image with other image i.e File:Firefox 19 on Windows.png in the article Mozilla Firefox.

As i like you and your work very much, i had restored the image uploaded by you in "Platform availability" column in the same article.

If you had any queries, i am waiting to listen from you.

Thanks Himanis Das (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, my screenshot was outdated. I haven't managed to create a new free screenshot of Firefox 19.x yet. And thank you for your kind words. -Mardus (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nokia 1100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hours (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Motorola MicroTAC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Feature phone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• among them Standard [[C (programming language)|C]]/[[C++]], [[Python for S60|Python]], [[Ruby (programming language|Ruby]], and [[Flash Lite]]. New IDEs and SDKs were developed and then released

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feature phone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EPOC (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) 08:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Roar (song) for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I believe that I was not using the page as a forum or chatroom, and used my discussion for improving the article; neither have you pointed out the specific thread or subsection where you claim 'general discussion of the topic'. -Mardus (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out MOS:DABNAME and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Sortable tables seem to be out of order for surname articles, the entries should be in a bulleted list. Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the sortable table to be a compromise solution, given that some editors want names to be sorted in alphabetical order, and some chronologically (mostly by date of birth). -Mardus (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by birth is not always possible, since the birthdate is often unknown. Alphabetical sorting is always possible, since all articles have names. There's the logical answer to sorting by alphabetical order. In short lists sorting is not at all necessary, since all entries are still together on the screen. But that is not the issue. The problem here is that you can't overturn consensus/standards established by a whole WikiProject on your own single-handed initiative. That will lead to future disagreements about the appropriate format, as soon as a member of the project get's aware of your changes. Kraxler (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the birthdate is often unknown, then there's the floruit date, or first active date, as it is with historical figures. Agree about short lists (up to five names).

It would be a fair amount of work to change the formatting back manually, and someone has already added another name using the formatting I introduced. I do believe I understand your concern. I have had issues with at least one user who seems to own all Microsoft- and technology-related articles, so I tend to stay away from there. I won't revert this yet, so I could use the page to propose some ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. -Mardus (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you see that sorting birth years and floruit years together makes a muddle of things? Most people floruit about 20 or 30 or even more years after they were born. I added another name without changing the format, because it is not good form to revert first and discuss afterwards (in case of format). I'm not a member of the Anthroponomy project, so I'd rather see it discussed there with them. Kraxler (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put up a proposal at MOS:APO standards talk. -Mardus (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sodom and Gomorrah may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of [[divine retribution]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Melton |first=J. Gordon |last2=Baumann |first2=Martin |title=Religions of the World,
• of the World, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practises |year=2010]]</ref><ref>[[Qur'an]](S15) [[Al-Hijr]]:72-73</ref>{{Bibleref2c|Jude|1:7}} Sodom and Gomorrah have

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Firefox release compatibility has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 10:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I noticed the evidence put forward at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Evidence, which I thank you for. I'm not sure what the procedure is for these cases or if any editor is allowed to put forward evidence or is it restricted to clerks/admins only? The reason I ask this, is because the behaviour you picked up on at TfD dated 6 December 2014, continued at the project's talk page and then at subsequent TfD's dated 17, 28, 29, 30, and 31 December. The one of 17 December was a nomination of a universal template that was suggested to be created at the TfD of 6 December. Any advice on whether I would be able to put across further evidence or where it should be sent to would be much help. Thank you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different questions in the context, from my position, having nothing to do with merges/deletions of infobox templates so far but gotten interested in the topic by the suggested merge of {{infobox hymn}}.

• Could you please sign your post?
• I write articles on many hymns, and found the template not useful. While I simply didn't use it, Andy made a formal request for a merge, - probably the better approach for the community than my silent resistence.
• You say: "Normally, major changes to a useful template should at first be discussed with affected editors on the template talk page (this requires raising of awareness through appropriate notification). Because a person who wishes a useful template deleted, anticipates substantial opposition to this, he avoids discussing this or any changes to templates on templates' talk pages and goes instead directly to TfD." - Now you could of course argue that hymn doesn't fall under this statement because it is not useful, but let's assume it is. What should (if I follow you) have been discussed before the merge request with what editor(s) and project, and why? Look at editors/projects of some articles? The notice of an ongoing merge discussion, which comes with the template wherever it appears, seems to be a notification which should reach ALL interested editors, much fairer if you ask me, on top of much easier. It "avoids" nothing, - just the opposite, it's open to all, rather than only a selection, which would indeed avoid other editors and projects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Firefox for mobile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Guardian Project. 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) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edited name of the Sailfish OS version 1.0.2.5 from Maadajävri to Maadajärvi in Sailfish OS article twice. This is not correct. While lake is indeed järvi in Finnish, the name of the lake (and SFOS version) isn't Maadajärvi but Maadajävri. The name is in Skolt Sami language and jävri is the correct Skolt spelling for lake. Finnish name of this particular lake is Tyvijärvi, but that has nothing to do with the fact, that the OS version named Maadajävri.

The name has been edited several times even though there is a valid source citing that the name is indeed Maadajävri. Please stop editing disinformation into properly cited articles. 37.136.97.161 (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. If other people have made this false correction before, then it seems that most people familiar with Finnish consistently find it confusing as to why the letters are not in order. -Mardus (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the picture used in the current article is the only known image of the man. This screen-shot of Mullah Omar in 1996 holding the cloak of Muhammad filmed by the BBC shows him [1], This image is also believed to be of him before he lost his right eye [2], This image of a man described as being Mullah Omar [3] looks very similar to this image [4] and this image [5],[6] shown in this Vanity Fair article [7] also bears similarities with [8], in terms of the beard line along the mans cheekbones. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article I'm referencing shows the same photo that's in the article, and says it's the only known photograph of him. -Mardus (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "the only known photograph" rules out films, and other photos are not confirmed with certainty that it is him. I can qualify the caption with the word 'confirmed'. -Mardus (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I forget to add these images:[9],[10],[11]--Ritsaiph (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more certainty that the image used in the article is him then any other image which purports to be him. The New York Times can make any statement they like regarding this, it doesn't mean that they are correct. Far more reliable sources use many images depicting him than just the one used in the article stating it is the only one known. This article states that a different image is one of the few images known to be him [12] while this states that the two images used by the U.S State Department, of which the one from the article is from, are not of Omar [13]. So there is no real consensus over which images are of him or not, nor of when each picture was taken. This article describes the current image used in the article as being taken from the late 1990's [14], in contrast to the Vanity Fair article which stated it was taken in 1993. I'm not saying the image is not of him, but I am saying that stating it is the only confirmed photo or the only known photo of him is probably not a correct statement. It might give readers the impression that it could be true, when it might not be. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to Talk:Mohammed Omar#Mullah Omar photos (discussion moved here). -Mardus (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beidou. 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) 09:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3D-printed stethoscope 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D-printed stethoscope 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. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mardus, Jatayou has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tks vm for your comment re Nilüfer. Jatayou (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough explanation of what is needed to keep an image on Commons, such as LocoWiki's artwork in Photographs of Alan Kurdi. Burst of unj (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Firefox for mobile page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your Third Opinion request. The process requires that the dispute be thoroughly discussed on the talk page. I see no discussion with the other user. The process does not comment on user conduct, only content. You should use the talk page for discussion, and if the other user is disruptive, use appropriate channels to pursue them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mardus! I have read your comment in the Salebot user talk page im portuguese Wikipedia. The problem is solved for me. if you have new problems of the type, just undo in the same time the edition of the bot account, because the bot cannot undo more than one edition for day in a same article. I hope I have enlightened! good editions, and greetings!--Leon saudanha (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Mardus /talk 13:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mardus. I just want to let you know that I removed File:SunbirdIcon.png from your User:Mardus/Free software projects named after animals. The file is considered to be non-free content by Wikipedia and therefore there are limits placed on how and where it may be used because of its copyright status. One of these limitations is WP:NFCC#9 which says that non-free content may only be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace. Unfortunately, this means it cannot be used on or in user pages, templates, sandboxes, talk pages, etc. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask them here or at WP:MCQ -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tibla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ths for the great improvement. Can you do the same with another my article, Ivan Orav? Unfortunately my knowledge of Estonian is quite limited :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 04:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Yestonians, too. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yestonians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadre. 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) 09:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Internet Explorer 6 with classic styles.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mardus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a purist, too, and agree it's better to say Steck died rather than he was killed, but to insist on it seems pedantic. Nearly all sources say he was killed. What killed him? His fall. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pedantic, but unambiguous to have correct wording: If someone was killed, then it means, that someone else did it to the person who 'was killed'. If someone died, then it could just as well have been an accident. -Mardus /talk 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please correct reference 1? Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236 | I think you meant Reference 2. Should be ok now. -Mardus /talk 01:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to these new pages. Is there another way to collaborate while creating a new page than what amounts to competitive editing? I may not type as fast as the rest of you... survival of the swiftest looks to be the code. AHampton (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that's collaboration. If there is anything you might have issues with, place bring them up in article talk, or let me know. Be specific. -Mardus /talk 03:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Murderers category any any other indications of guilt are premature until such a time as a court deems it so. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by AHampton (talk • contribs) on 03:34, 26 September 2017

The Blake Leibel article contains a relevant comment in the code. That should give you enough direction. -Mardus /talk 03:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, based on your userboxes, I thought you might be pleased to see this! Zazpot (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free software logos, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mardus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tommy Cash (Estonian rapper) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddogsix: Oh hi, no need to worry, I'm in the process of expanding the article. I needed first to establish it in the wikidata, stub, and category structures. -Mardus /talk 01:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Fuqua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pulp fiction

Tillotson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pulp fiction

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that back in 2008 you made several contributions to James Carville article. He is a frequent contributor to The National Memo, so I assume that you know this media (and the liberal press) quite well. The article has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for your assistance in editing/improving this article.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor. At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding some well-referenced info. The article started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

A lot of what is going all around this article is plain nonsense. So if you are interested in the subject / in improving the article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbarmadillo | Well, The National Memo is just a politics-oriented newspaper and web outlet with a left-of-center slant. I looked at the first version of the Wikipedia article you linked to, and the achievements of the paper don't amount to much, because it's almoost the same kind of work that other outlets do. Stories simply being picked up by others is not necessarily a marker of quality, as this practice is very widespread.

More content in the Wikipedia article is merited, if its the gazzette's reportage reaches or exceeds the level of the outlets you mentioned, and that of others. A major journalism prize would be good, too. All that typically requires a lot of dedication, time, and work.

The article on James Carville lives its own life, because AFAIK, Mr. Carville is currently a known personality wrt talking about politics, and so anything about him should be referenced not only extensively, but also from quality sources that he is not directly involved with (per BLP, I assume).

In appearance and substance, no Wikipedia/sister project article should appear like paid content. -Mardus /talk 06:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Thank you for sharing your point of view. Deletion of Bill Clinton's interview mention was a particular surprise to me. I am not following closely the US politics but it doesn't seem that he often give interviews to media. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbarmadillo | If the interview with Bill Clinton has anything interesting, then information from it could be included in the Wikipeda article about the former president, and the link to the URL included as a reference. -Mardus /talk 08:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jackie Wallace, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jackie Wallace told the coach of the Los Angeles Rams to "kiss his ass" for failing to field him in Super Bowl XIV, his final NFL game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jackie Wallace. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jackie Wallace), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mardus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nokia 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AGPS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Singular they, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honda Fit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayutthaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mardus

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username My name is not dave, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Amy Hawkins, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|My name is not dave}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

talk to !dave 19:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for improving the wording for RDs at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for the next newbie there and enduring the reactions like nobody having complained about it before. —Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link is here. -Mardus /talk 07:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit disruptively. Please stop your disruptive editing. Multiple native English speakers at multiple talk pages have told you that your understanding is incorrect. —valereee (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does your warning apply to me expressing opinions in talk pages and proposals? Does this warning apply to any opinion I wish to express on Wikipedia? -Mardus /talk 05:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to continuing to make the same argument over and over after multiple other editors have disagreed with you and no one is agreeing with you. If you have a general habit of continuing to make the same argument after multiple other people have told you you're wrong about something, you are probably going to find other editors find that disruptive and may report you to some noticeboard somewhere for Wikipedia:BLUDGEONing, which is what happened in this case.

When you do this, you waste a lot of other people's time. In this case you wasted the time of the everyone after maybe the third person, definitely everyone after the fourth person. And you did it because you, a non-native speaker of English, were relying on your own understanding of something you'd read about English that seemed to indicate that every native speaker of English who had read any of the Wikipedia articles you thought you were going to fix was simply wrong about idiomatic English. For the GAZ-24 article alone that's thousands of people. Thousands of people who apparently simply didn't notice what would be a glaring error to any native English speaker. And yet you wrote Across the board, the make and model names of various products (cars, electornics) have been written with the definite article applied wrongly, due mostly to the paucity of rules. There's no rule here on Wikipedia about the application of the definite article in such cases because native English speakers don't need such a rule. The average native English speaker doesn't even know what a definite article is because they don't need to know what it is in order to apply it correctly. And yet you wasted dozens of people's time arguing that all around you were wrong about this. Wasting other editors' time is considered a very big deal because that's all we have: our volunteers' time.

So, yes, this warning would apply to any opinion you wish to express on Wikipedia in a manner that appears to be bludgeoning. If someone needs to warn you for this again, they'd likely take into account that you'd already been warned for this. —valereee (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses have been noted. I've stepped back from pushing the definite article issue, but that won't prevent other individuals from trying to do so in the future.

Despite that, I have no trust, that you would not call my future expressions of opinion 'bludgeoning', even if I were to do that in a non-bludgeoning way, and in a way that other editors and admins would not see as disruptive, even if you would. What can you do to regain my trust? -Mardus /talk 14:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there's zero chance of any other individual raising this issue, because nobody -- nobody -- finds any merit whatsoever to what you've been saying. You can regain our trust by recognizing that you simply misinterpreted something someone said. EEng 18:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retain my right to hold my own beliefs with regard to how I interpret the rules of English grammar, and I have not seen any good arguments that would convince me otherwise. Do not forget, that I have stepped back from this particular issue, insofar as editing goes outside my userspace and my talkspace at the very least. -Mardus /talk 02:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That at the very least, my userspace and my talkspace should be safe to discuss these things. -Mardus /talk 02:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you apparently still think your non-native-speaker assessment of usage of the direct article in English is correct, despite multiple native speakers telling you you are wrong? And that eventually someone TRULY expert in English is going to come along and agree with you? Okay. That is kind of an astonishing belief.

I completely would call it bludgeoning if you repeatedly make the same arguments when multiple other people are telling you you're wrong. It is highly likely that if I think it's bludgeoning, other editors and admins will, too, but you're absolutely welcome to take your concerns to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You can totally do that now if you like.

You don't need to trust me, and I'm not actually concerned whether you do or don't. What you do need to do is pay heed to my warnings and those of other experienced editors. —valereee (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed many non-native speakers be much better at English grammar, syntax, and spelling, than a lot of native speakers. That includes non-native teachers of the English language, for example.

I have every right to hold opinions, and I have every right to my thoughts. Above the scope of Wikipedia, these are some of the things that you cannot take away from me. Neither are my personal thoughts and opinions your business.

I believe I have expressed my thoughts and ideas here in good faith, with a hope, that said thoughts and opinions might be able to convince someone on whatever issue that may need resolution, and also to find out if a proposal has enough support.

Your original warning is unduly aggressive, and it implicitly forbids me to express any of my future thoughts and opinions on the English-language Wikipedia, even if they're civil and non-bludgeoning, and even when they're expressed in talkspace. The nature and scope of your original warning are such, that they do erode trust in your actions.

Talkspace ought to be a safe space for everyone to freely discuss ideas without fear of retaliation in the event of a difference of opinion. That's why I'd submitted the proposal in the first place.

As far as the definite article is concerned, that issue has been closed here, with thanks expressed to User:Girth_Summit. -Mardus /talk 02:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is telling you not to freely discuss. We're telling you that when a dozen people more expert than you about something tell you you're wrong, listen to them. It's a good life lesson in general. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your original warning does indeed mean, that I was no longer free to discuss anything. That is how I interpreted this, and this is how it looks like to me. I do not believe I'm wrong, but that my attempts at explaining or questioning the status quo were quickly suppressed, by you and others.

This left me with an impression, that you and others made it no no longer safe for me to make useful contributions to the English-language Wikipedia. Hence issues with having trust in your judgement.

There was a time, when tobacco companies had firm knowledge, that cigarettes are harmful to people's health, but Big Tobacco downplayed such evidence, and used wrongful claims of 'a lack' of evidence thereto as an appeal to what at the time appeared as an abundance of information supposedly claiming safety ('no-one dropped dead right away'), in the face of paucity of claims of harm, and disinformation. Such action was carried out by making discussion fora unsafe, by using suppression tactics and other underhanded methods in order to avoid at any cost informed and public discussions of harm to health at length. -Mardus /talk 07:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does warning you of consequences that will ensue "the next time you edit disruptively", mean that you cannot discuss anything? --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

valereee did use to work on Philip Morris' legal team. I am just glad that they're on my side, promoting the improper use of definite articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Internet Explorer 6 with classic styles.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) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018 Pew poll on public opinion of the U.S. by country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing splitting up mobile browser into a couple different articles to better organize and reflect the information there; since you've contributed a lot to the page I thought you might be interested in weighing in at the discussion. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of proprietary software for Linux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't think that this article meets WP:LISTN. If this prod is declined I will send it to AfD for a more thorough discussion about it.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samsung SCH-U470, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung SCH-U470 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mardus! I noticed you marked an edit as minor at Thomas E. Kurtz that may not have been. Overall, you seem to be using the minor edit flag frequently for edits that don't seem to be minor edits such as edits that change words and other significant changes. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. As a general rule, it's best not to mark an edit as minor unless it's so trivial and straightforward that nobody could ever object.

I also noticed that many of the commas you added to the article were not necessary. Specifically, commas are generally not used before "that" unless it's part of a non-restrictive clause or there's a specific reason for separation. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]