|
Please see my reply to your comment on the talk page. Lexicon (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to continue this here because I like to argue, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the article Canada any longer, and therefore does not belong on that talk page.
You wrote:
We are in total agreement that Canada is not a part of the UK and that the UK is not a part of Canada. They have become two separate and distinct countries. And certainly, the Queen does not equal the United Kingdom. I was not saying that Canada is united with the UK. The point was that, while most all measures toward independence have been gained by Canada, there remains the one vestige of a bond in having the same person as Queen.
I'd say that this discussion has everything to do with the Canada article. Please feel free to move your response back there (as I will post my reply there).
Thanks for uploading Image:BillPhillips.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have attempted to clarify the derivation of the Second Law on the Force page. The question of whether F=ma is a "simplified" form of the law has been debated at length on the talk page of Newton's Laws of Motion. See here and here.
In classical mechanics, where there are no relativistic effects, the Law only applies to systems of constant mass (see here, so it is redundant and misleading to include the derivative of mass on the right side of the equation. This tends to cause people to erroneously think that is applies to varying-mass systems like rockets.
However, if you believe the Force article should include a discussion of relativistic effects, then it is valid to include the derivative of mass on the right side. If so, then I think we need to expand that section to explain this distinction. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Franklin Chang-Diaz. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. The reference you used did not state what you suggested. -
MBK
004
23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add
unsourced or
original content, as you did to
STS-51. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. -
MBK
004
23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give
Tracy Caldwell a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. - MBK 004 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Would you mind checking the Apollo 13 talk page? I disagree with the assertion "There was no explosion." Details on the talk page. Thanks. Yopienso ( talk) 07:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I certainly do appreciate your friendly attitude! I hope I wasn't too sharp; my intention was to be brief.
The Damage to the Service Module The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank number 2 in the service module about 56 hours into the mission. The explosion also ruptured a line or damaged a valve in oxygen tank number 1, causing it to lose oxygen rapidly. Within about 3 hours, all oxygen stores were lost, along with water, electrical power, and use of the service module propulsion system. Visual assessment of the damage could not be made until the end of the mission, when the service module was jettisoned in preparation to reentry. Then it could be seen that the cover of service module bay number 4 had blown off and the equipment inside was badly mangled. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_13/return/
"'There's one whole side of that spacecraft missing,' said Lovell in astonishment. About five hours before splashdown the service module was jettisoned in a manner that would permit the astronauts to assess its condition. Until then, nobody realized the extent of the damage." http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-13-2.html
"Flight controllers were still not sure what happened to cause the massive oxygen leak in the command ship. Was it a meteoroid strike? Or some jarring explosion on board?
"Something happened, and it was a very violent thing," James A. McDivitt, a former astronaut and current spacecraft manager, said. "But as far as what exactly happened, I have no idea."
[All bolding above is mine.]
I wish all WP editors were as pleasant to work with as you are! Best wishes, Yopienso ( talk) 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. A few more comments:
"The events between fan turnon at 55:53:20 and the time when the problem was evident to the crew and Mission Control are covered in some detail in Part 4 of this chapter, 'Summary Analysis of the Accident.' It is now clear that oxygen tank no. 2 or its associated tubing lost pressure integrity because of combustion within the tank, and that effects of oxygen escaping from the tank caused the removal of the panel covering bay 4 and a relatively slow leak in oxygen tank no. 1 or its lines or valves. Photos of the SM taken by the crew later in the mission show the panel missing, the fuel cells on the shelf above the oxygen shelf tilted, and the high-gain antenna damaged."
Translated into layman's English, that says there was an explosion in tank 2 that damaged tank 1 or its fittings, blew off the panel, knocked the fuel cells catawampus, and damaged the antenna.
Well, my husband is clamoring for his supper, so I'll sign off now. Best, Yopienso ( talk) 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been talking about having been blown off are the ones on the Service Module (damage on A13, then planned on A15/16/17).
Hmm. Now I am very puzzled. Your argument here from the start was to assert that the O2 tank exploded, but Cortright never published any conclusion of the sort. I've even highlighted the "four levels of proof that the Odyssey O2 Tank 2 did not explode" that was detailed in the report.
If you've read anything in it that you think means one thing, but you suspect might mean something else, I'd be glad to offer my own understanding of what it is saying.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the data for the graph. Thanks for the info. -- Jackl 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I just removed the pointer that I added on to the caption, both in the article and on the .svg image.
The next Wikipedia fundraiser should be the foundation selling 'Team Wikipedia' t-shirts!--
Tdadamemd (
talk)
04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems your edit is contested, since it's been reverted, and it's nothing to do with WP:NPOV, but everything to do with WP:V, which trumps NPOV. please feel free to offer citations. Rodhull andemu 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tdadamemd, I noticed that you edited the The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus page to refer to the correlation between the band's name and the Camp X-Ray photos. From what I recall, the band members randomly chose their name by selecting random words that they put up on a wall, and were not influenced by the photos. Do you happen to have any references to back up this edit, then? Mattimis ( talk) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I missed your discussion on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Looks like you missed my response today. I've reverted your most recent change. We really must stick to "explode" with the reliable secondary and tertiary sources. The Cortright report is a primary source and not appropriate to use to justify the changes. Please see WP:PSTS. Thanks. Yopienso ( talk) 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed your addition as it struck me as largely irrelevant for the article. If you feel it should be added please gain consensus on the talk page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a brief hint: your edits are more likely to be longlasting if you attach footnotes to them. This also helps readers to learn more. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
hi Tdadamemd. I appreciate you suggesting a possible solution to the deletionist problem, but unfortunately i don't think it would be viable in practice, the reasons being, it would be just one more fork and hence not unique enough to attract interest, google drives traffic to wikipedia anyway, and these things have been tried before and didn't last (remember Includipedia?). The analogy of Wikipedia and Nupedia no longer holds, because it pertains to an earlier time when both were very small projects. Wikipedia is currently one of the top half dozen or so start up websites that have become monolithic institutions that everyone relies on (others are google, facebook, ebay, paypal, amazon, etc) and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. So it's a good idea in theory, but, yeah, it looks like we're stuck with the currently wikipedia, for better or worse. I'm involved with a number of other creative projects now anyway, so even if a WikiMemex or something like it were to start up, and avoid the fate of similar past initiatives, I wouldn't have the time or energy to contribute much or anything to it. Thanks for suggesting it anyway. Best regards M Alan Kazlev ( talk) 12:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Optimism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attitude ( 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, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It clearly reads at the top of the page and in red-
STOP! PLEASE DO NOT ADD ITEMS TO THIS LIST THAT DO NOT HAVE A LINKED DEDICATED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. THEY WILL BE REVERTED.
In fact if you go here [1], you'll see it says the same thing twice before you get to the edit section. Your edit to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft article has been reverted.- William 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest comments added here.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give
FedEx Express Flight 705 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into
Federal Express Flight 705. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jared Preston ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Concrete, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pantheon and Admixture ( 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) 10:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Saturn V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prospector ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Vegetarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eggs ( 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) 11:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tdadamemd: (First of all, excuse me by my poor English) About the picture you add on Nutation, it shows the yearly displacement of the tropic line due to a 41,000 year cycle swing movement, one of the Milankovitch cycles. Nutation causes a much larger shift, some years almost 1,000 feet, as I explain in the reverted (by the compulsive reversor Atila rey) edition of 2012-03-27 of the Spanish wiki article Oblicuidad de la eclíptica. In the Spanish Wiki article Nutación, I add an animation showing both, the swing (yellow line) and the nutation (green line) effects in displacement of the tropic lines and polar circles. I got some years ago the picture you add, in order to use it in the Google Earth Community post Trópico en Movimiento. Saludos. Ereenegee ( talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Could possibly find a image of the Apollo 9 command module on display. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 ( talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.13 ( talk) 02:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you possibly find a video of the apollo 13 splashdown. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 ( talk) 19:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.13 ( talk) 02:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It's blocked on my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.181.92 ( talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmosphere of Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deep space ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you take a look at the current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80) page you will see that I have started a page to make Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius a page. It will take some edits from others for this page to be able to be used. I am torn on editing it and writing a paper on Ramanujan primes. So, feel free to editing it. John W. Nicholson ( talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
John W. Nicholson ( talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iridium satellite constellation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital plane ( 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) 11:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Writing system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Letters ( 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) 11:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to our Sexual intercourse article, I suggest you read WP:LEAD, and WP:BRD. Rather than coming out with bullshit about 'censorship' (which in my experience is almost always evidence of a poor grasp of Wikipedia policy, at minimum), you need to show two things (a) why this needs to go in the article at all (which it might possibly), and (b) why it needs to go in the lede (which is questionable to say the least). You have been reverted twice - so if you want to change the article, explain why on the talk page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Another key point that you might be interested in is how you say "your edits to our Sexual intercourse article" (my emphasis). I will suggest to you that you review the Wikipedia policy on ownership. I'll look for a link in case you're interested...-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Found it: W:Ownership of articles. Quote:
It goes on to talk about Group Ownership activity, which is what I see happening over at the article. For whatever that may be worth to you, and whoever else might be reading this.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
01:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)I will suggest that you take a closer look at how all of today's actions unfolded, and re-examine who is at fault for exactly what, and also re-examine which Wikipedia policies take precedence over which.
There's actually a very simple way to cut to the chase here: just observe that Wikipedia has a huge article on sexual intercourse, and the word "fuck" does not appear in it one single time. I hope that you are not offended by me using that word. It certainly appears that others, many others, are.
I did what I did today knowing full well that there are plenty of admins who will blindly block based on 3RR, without looking any deeper as to whether or not the "offender" had reasonable, and perhaps even justifiable, reasons for acting "badly". I was hoping that the admin who would act on this particular case would have checked into the full set of facts before any impulsive reflex happened. And I hope that you in choosing your action came from after you had looked at the full situation.
Now in case it did not, and at some point in time during this 48 hour period, you come to a realization that I was acting in the best interest of Wikipedia, all things considered, and that I persistently presented a reasonable argument to have a discussion on the article's Talk page and yet no one wanted to do so, and if after such consideration you believe that it was a mistake to block me, then I would be very appreciative if you would remove the block.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Tdadamemd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Article appears to be censored, through group bullying methods when I persistently presented reasonable rational replies to each revert - and expressed total willingness to discuss on article Talk page, which none of the reverters initiated. Please look at the bigger picture to find what I clearly see to be the bigger problem.
- Edit: To put this more bluntly, if my assessment is correct, then the admin decision to block me in this case is a decision to support censorship on Wikipedia. And if admins support censorship, then what do we have here? We already know what we have: we have a huge article on sexual intercourse that has absolutely no mention of the word 'fuck'. Maybe this is an issue that should be raised to the very top of Wikipedia leadership. Because if this can happen at one article, then the problem could very well be systemic to all of Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Nick-D ( talk) 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Formal unblock request added.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just declined your unblock request as it doesn't address the reason for the block. In addition to the links provided in the automated message, please see WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D ( talk) 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terra incognita, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Territory and Terrestrial ( 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) 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a comment on your proof at Talk:0.999.../Arguments#Simple Visual Proof. Gustave the Steel seems to know the person who left that message and has replied, but you may want to have a look of your own. I'll just say that I'm not surprised that the proof isn't convincing to everybody. Huon ( talk) 05:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Drive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dropbox ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Catholic sex abuse cases shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bilby ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Aunva6 (
talk)
07:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. while you do have a reference, it still appears to be originating all from a single, primary source. it also does not adhere to
WP:NPOV
Aunva6 (
talk)
07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013 (UTC)
When you revert someone's edit, please read their edit summary first. Following the policy Bilby linked ( WP:LINKVIO) he was in the right changing YouTube links to the originals on the BBC. I am reverting your edit after reading this policy. If you don't like a policy, discuss it on that talk page. This policy is basically to keep the WIkimedia Foundation from liability for copyright violations that are linked to from Wikipedia. If he is linked to programs other than the ones you want, then say that. I would accept that as legitimate. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I rarely contribute to Wikipedia, but I find myself relying on it for a more in-depth coverage of issues than I can normally find in other sources. I'm a little dismayed by the article on Benedict XVI's resignation, for the reasons you've so eloquently raised on its talk page. I just want to encourage you to keep going. I agree with you completely that the article, as it stands, seems sanitized; and seeing that many sections of even the talk page have been deleted is almost unnerving. Thankyou very much for defending Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I profoundly hope you continue. Steve.Murgaski ( talk) 17:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRO ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know steve lindsey personaly. We were in the same boy scout troop. He told me a story about how his nickname in college. Any more questions please email me @ sgetten@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.178 ( talk) 21:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss your assertion that AD year notation spread due to the popularity of the Christian religion on the talk pages of the respective articles before inserting this claim into the articles. There are other plausible reasons, such as colonialism on the part of nations that used that notation, or success in international trade by nations that use that notation. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Also, all Obama articles are under probation and general sanctions. Please familiarize yourself with this. Thanks. Dave Dial ( talk) 02:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you were involved in the start of an edit war on Jesus regarding some of the proposed changes you put forward. I realize you have not been reverting lately, and have been discussing it on the talk page, which is great! We need to try to get that conversation going and put a stop to reverts to avoid having anyone be blocked. Would you be able to start a discussion about the specific edit you want to make, and get some info on what other editors do and don't like about it? That might be helpful in finding a solution amicable to everyone. Thanks! Prodego talk 02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you've been notified already, but just in case, you should know that the Talk:Barack Obama page is covered by discretionary sanctions, which are mentioned at the top of that talk page. You need to read those before proceeding. You are at WP:3RR, having made at least three contentious reversions to the talk page in the last few hours. Further, your combative approach to this talk page over the past several weeks is untenable in a project that is supposed to involve collaboration and consensus among editors. Your conduct there may result in your editing privileges being blocked by an uninvolved administrator to prevent further disruption to the talk page, and if you do any more reversions I or someone else will report this and you will almost certainly be blocked. Please take this as a caution, not an attempt to discuss. - Wikidemon ( talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Some quotes:
Accordingly, the next time I come across you adding something like this without proper sources (not Google search results, not your own research, not asking for others to come up with sources) I will ask for you to be banned from making any BLP-related edits on Wikipedia. -- NeilN talk to me 15:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You are edit warring on Talk:Barack Obama, Sr., which is a sanctions-protected article. Also, please read WP:NOTVAND. JoeSperrazza ( talk)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
JoeSperrazza (
talk)
00:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.
NeilN
talk to me
00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloud Kite 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/Cloud Kite 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 22:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enola; or, Her fatal mistake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
|
Please see my reply to your comment on the talk page. Lexicon (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to continue this here because I like to argue, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the article Canada any longer, and therefore does not belong on that talk page.
You wrote:
We are in total agreement that Canada is not a part of the UK and that the UK is not a part of Canada. They have become two separate and distinct countries. And certainly, the Queen does not equal the United Kingdom. I was not saying that Canada is united with the UK. The point was that, while most all measures toward independence have been gained by Canada, there remains the one vestige of a bond in having the same person as Queen.
I'd say that this discussion has everything to do with the Canada article. Please feel free to move your response back there (as I will post my reply there).
Thanks for uploading Image:BillPhillips.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have attempted to clarify the derivation of the Second Law on the Force page. The question of whether F=ma is a "simplified" form of the law has been debated at length on the talk page of Newton's Laws of Motion. See here and here.
In classical mechanics, where there are no relativistic effects, the Law only applies to systems of constant mass (see here, so it is redundant and misleading to include the derivative of mass on the right side of the equation. This tends to cause people to erroneously think that is applies to varying-mass systems like rockets.
However, if you believe the Force article should include a discussion of relativistic effects, then it is valid to include the derivative of mass on the right side. If so, then I think we need to expand that section to explain this distinction. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Franklin Chang-Diaz. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. The reference you used did not state what you suggested. -
MBK
004
23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add
unsourced or
original content, as you did to
STS-51. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. -
MBK
004
23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give
Tracy Caldwell a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. - MBK 004 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Would you mind checking the Apollo 13 talk page? I disagree with the assertion "There was no explosion." Details on the talk page. Thanks. Yopienso ( talk) 07:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I certainly do appreciate your friendly attitude! I hope I wasn't too sharp; my intention was to be brief.
The Damage to the Service Module The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank number 2 in the service module about 56 hours into the mission. The explosion also ruptured a line or damaged a valve in oxygen tank number 1, causing it to lose oxygen rapidly. Within about 3 hours, all oxygen stores were lost, along with water, electrical power, and use of the service module propulsion system. Visual assessment of the damage could not be made until the end of the mission, when the service module was jettisoned in preparation to reentry. Then it could be seen that the cover of service module bay number 4 had blown off and the equipment inside was badly mangled. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_13/return/
"'There's one whole side of that spacecraft missing,' said Lovell in astonishment. About five hours before splashdown the service module was jettisoned in a manner that would permit the astronauts to assess its condition. Until then, nobody realized the extent of the damage." http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-13-2.html
"Flight controllers were still not sure what happened to cause the massive oxygen leak in the command ship. Was it a meteoroid strike? Or some jarring explosion on board?
"Something happened, and it was a very violent thing," James A. McDivitt, a former astronaut and current spacecraft manager, said. "But as far as what exactly happened, I have no idea."
[All bolding above is mine.]
I wish all WP editors were as pleasant to work with as you are! Best wishes, Yopienso ( talk) 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. A few more comments:
"The events between fan turnon at 55:53:20 and the time when the problem was evident to the crew and Mission Control are covered in some detail in Part 4 of this chapter, 'Summary Analysis of the Accident.' It is now clear that oxygen tank no. 2 or its associated tubing lost pressure integrity because of combustion within the tank, and that effects of oxygen escaping from the tank caused the removal of the panel covering bay 4 and a relatively slow leak in oxygen tank no. 1 or its lines or valves. Photos of the SM taken by the crew later in the mission show the panel missing, the fuel cells on the shelf above the oxygen shelf tilted, and the high-gain antenna damaged."
Translated into layman's English, that says there was an explosion in tank 2 that damaged tank 1 or its fittings, blew off the panel, knocked the fuel cells catawampus, and damaged the antenna.
Well, my husband is clamoring for his supper, so I'll sign off now. Best, Yopienso ( talk) 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been talking about having been blown off are the ones on the Service Module (damage on A13, then planned on A15/16/17).
Hmm. Now I am very puzzled. Your argument here from the start was to assert that the O2 tank exploded, but Cortright never published any conclusion of the sort. I've even highlighted the "four levels of proof that the Odyssey O2 Tank 2 did not explode" that was detailed in the report.
If you've read anything in it that you think means one thing, but you suspect might mean something else, I'd be glad to offer my own understanding of what it is saying.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the data for the graph. Thanks for the info. -- Jackl 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I just removed the pointer that I added on to the caption, both in the article and on the .svg image.
The next Wikipedia fundraiser should be the foundation selling 'Team Wikipedia' t-shirts!--
Tdadamemd (
talk)
04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems your edit is contested, since it's been reverted, and it's nothing to do with WP:NPOV, but everything to do with WP:V, which trumps NPOV. please feel free to offer citations. Rodhull andemu 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tdadamemd, I noticed that you edited the The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus page to refer to the correlation between the band's name and the Camp X-Ray photos. From what I recall, the band members randomly chose their name by selecting random words that they put up on a wall, and were not influenced by the photos. Do you happen to have any references to back up this edit, then? Mattimis ( talk) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I missed your discussion on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Looks like you missed my response today. I've reverted your most recent change. We really must stick to "explode" with the reliable secondary and tertiary sources. The Cortright report is a primary source and not appropriate to use to justify the changes. Please see WP:PSTS. Thanks. Yopienso ( talk) 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed your addition as it struck me as largely irrelevant for the article. If you feel it should be added please gain consensus on the talk page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a brief hint: your edits are more likely to be longlasting if you attach footnotes to them. This also helps readers to learn more. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
hi Tdadamemd. I appreciate you suggesting a possible solution to the deletionist problem, but unfortunately i don't think it would be viable in practice, the reasons being, it would be just one more fork and hence not unique enough to attract interest, google drives traffic to wikipedia anyway, and these things have been tried before and didn't last (remember Includipedia?). The analogy of Wikipedia and Nupedia no longer holds, because it pertains to an earlier time when both were very small projects. Wikipedia is currently one of the top half dozen or so start up websites that have become monolithic institutions that everyone relies on (others are google, facebook, ebay, paypal, amazon, etc) and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. So it's a good idea in theory, but, yeah, it looks like we're stuck with the currently wikipedia, for better or worse. I'm involved with a number of other creative projects now anyway, so even if a WikiMemex or something like it were to start up, and avoid the fate of similar past initiatives, I wouldn't have the time or energy to contribute much or anything to it. Thanks for suggesting it anyway. Best regards M Alan Kazlev ( talk) 12:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Optimism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attitude ( 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, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It clearly reads at the top of the page and in red-
STOP! PLEASE DO NOT ADD ITEMS TO THIS LIST THAT DO NOT HAVE A LINKED DEDICATED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. THEY WILL BE REVERTED.
In fact if you go here [1], you'll see it says the same thing twice before you get to the edit section. Your edit to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft article has been reverted.- William 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest comments added here.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give
FedEx Express Flight 705 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into
Federal Express Flight 705. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jared Preston ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Concrete, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pantheon and Admixture ( 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) 10:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Saturn V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prospector ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Vegetarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eggs ( 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) 11:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tdadamemd: (First of all, excuse me by my poor English) About the picture you add on Nutation, it shows the yearly displacement of the tropic line due to a 41,000 year cycle swing movement, one of the Milankovitch cycles. Nutation causes a much larger shift, some years almost 1,000 feet, as I explain in the reverted (by the compulsive reversor Atila rey) edition of 2012-03-27 of the Spanish wiki article Oblicuidad de la eclíptica. In the Spanish Wiki article Nutación, I add an animation showing both, the swing (yellow line) and the nutation (green line) effects in displacement of the tropic lines and polar circles. I got some years ago the picture you add, in order to use it in the Google Earth Community post Trópico en Movimiento. Saludos. Ereenegee ( talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Could possibly find a image of the Apollo 9 command module on display. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 ( talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.13 ( talk) 02:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you possibly find a video of the apollo 13 splashdown. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 ( talk) 19:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.13 ( talk) 02:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It's blocked on my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.181.92 ( talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmosphere of Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deep space ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you take a look at the current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80) page you will see that I have started a page to make Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius a page. It will take some edits from others for this page to be able to be used. I am torn on editing it and writing a paper on Ramanujan primes. So, feel free to editing it. John W. Nicholson ( talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
John W. Nicholson ( talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iridium satellite constellation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital plane ( 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) 11:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Writing system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Letters ( 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) 11:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to our Sexual intercourse article, I suggest you read WP:LEAD, and WP:BRD. Rather than coming out with bullshit about 'censorship' (which in my experience is almost always evidence of a poor grasp of Wikipedia policy, at minimum), you need to show two things (a) why this needs to go in the article at all (which it might possibly), and (b) why it needs to go in the lede (which is questionable to say the least). You have been reverted twice - so if you want to change the article, explain why on the talk page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Another key point that you might be interested in is how you say "your edits to our Sexual intercourse article" (my emphasis). I will suggest to you that you review the Wikipedia policy on ownership. I'll look for a link in case you're interested...-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Found it: W:Ownership of articles. Quote:
It goes on to talk about Group Ownership activity, which is what I see happening over at the article. For whatever that may be worth to you, and whoever else might be reading this.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
01:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)I will suggest that you take a closer look at how all of today's actions unfolded, and re-examine who is at fault for exactly what, and also re-examine which Wikipedia policies take precedence over which.
There's actually a very simple way to cut to the chase here: just observe that Wikipedia has a huge article on sexual intercourse, and the word "fuck" does not appear in it one single time. I hope that you are not offended by me using that word. It certainly appears that others, many others, are.
I did what I did today knowing full well that there are plenty of admins who will blindly block based on 3RR, without looking any deeper as to whether or not the "offender" had reasonable, and perhaps even justifiable, reasons for acting "badly". I was hoping that the admin who would act on this particular case would have checked into the full set of facts before any impulsive reflex happened. And I hope that you in choosing your action came from after you had looked at the full situation.
Now in case it did not, and at some point in time during this 48 hour period, you come to a realization that I was acting in the best interest of Wikipedia, all things considered, and that I persistently presented a reasonable argument to have a discussion on the article's Talk page and yet no one wanted to do so, and if after such consideration you believe that it was a mistake to block me, then I would be very appreciative if you would remove the block.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Tdadamemd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Article appears to be censored, through group bullying methods when I persistently presented reasonable rational replies to each revert - and expressed total willingness to discuss on article Talk page, which none of the reverters initiated. Please look at the bigger picture to find what I clearly see to be the bigger problem.
- Edit: To put this more bluntly, if my assessment is correct, then the admin decision to block me in this case is a decision to support censorship on Wikipedia. And if admins support censorship, then what do we have here? We already know what we have: we have a huge article on sexual intercourse that has absolutely no mention of the word 'fuck'. Maybe this is an issue that should be raised to the very top of Wikipedia leadership. Because if this can happen at one article, then the problem could very well be systemic to all of Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Nick-D ( talk) 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Formal unblock request added.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just declined your unblock request as it doesn't address the reason for the block. In addition to the links provided in the automated message, please see WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D ( talk) 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terra incognita, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Territory and Terrestrial ( 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) 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a comment on your proof at Talk:0.999.../Arguments#Simple Visual Proof. Gustave the Steel seems to know the person who left that message and has replied, but you may want to have a look of your own. I'll just say that I'm not surprised that the proof isn't convincing to everybody. Huon ( talk) 05:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Drive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dropbox ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Catholic sex abuse cases shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bilby ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Aunva6 (
talk)
07:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. while you do have a reference, it still appears to be originating all from a single, primary source. it also does not adhere to
WP:NPOV
Aunva6 (
talk)
07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013 (UTC)
When you revert someone's edit, please read their edit summary first. Following the policy Bilby linked ( WP:LINKVIO) he was in the right changing YouTube links to the originals on the BBC. I am reverting your edit after reading this policy. If you don't like a policy, discuss it on that talk page. This policy is basically to keep the WIkimedia Foundation from liability for copyright violations that are linked to from Wikipedia. If he is linked to programs other than the ones you want, then say that. I would accept that as legitimate. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I rarely contribute to Wikipedia, but I find myself relying on it for a more in-depth coverage of issues than I can normally find in other sources. I'm a little dismayed by the article on Benedict XVI's resignation, for the reasons you've so eloquently raised on its talk page. I just want to encourage you to keep going. I agree with you completely that the article, as it stands, seems sanitized; and seeing that many sections of even the talk page have been deleted is almost unnerving. Thankyou very much for defending Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I profoundly hope you continue. Steve.Murgaski ( talk) 17:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRO ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know steve lindsey personaly. We were in the same boy scout troop. He told me a story about how his nickname in college. Any more questions please email me @ sgetten@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.178 ( talk) 21:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss your assertion that AD year notation spread due to the popularity of the Christian religion on the talk pages of the respective articles before inserting this claim into the articles. There are other plausible reasons, such as colonialism on the part of nations that used that notation, or success in international trade by nations that use that notation. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Also, all Obama articles are under probation and general sanctions. Please familiarize yourself with this. Thanks. Dave Dial ( talk) 02:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you were involved in the start of an edit war on Jesus regarding some of the proposed changes you put forward. I realize you have not been reverting lately, and have been discussing it on the talk page, which is great! We need to try to get that conversation going and put a stop to reverts to avoid having anyone be blocked. Would you be able to start a discussion about the specific edit you want to make, and get some info on what other editors do and don't like about it? That might be helpful in finding a solution amicable to everyone. Thanks! Prodego talk 02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you've been notified already, but just in case, you should know that the Talk:Barack Obama page is covered by discretionary sanctions, which are mentioned at the top of that talk page. You need to read those before proceeding. You are at WP:3RR, having made at least three contentious reversions to the talk page in the last few hours. Further, your combative approach to this talk page over the past several weeks is untenable in a project that is supposed to involve collaboration and consensus among editors. Your conduct there may result in your editing privileges being blocked by an uninvolved administrator to prevent further disruption to the talk page, and if you do any more reversions I or someone else will report this and you will almost certainly be blocked. Please take this as a caution, not an attempt to discuss. - Wikidemon ( talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Some quotes:
Accordingly, the next time I come across you adding something like this without proper sources (not Google search results, not your own research, not asking for others to come up with sources) I will ask for you to be banned from making any BLP-related edits on Wikipedia. -- NeilN talk to me 15:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You are edit warring on Talk:Barack Obama, Sr., which is a sanctions-protected article. Also, please read WP:NOTVAND. JoeSperrazza ( talk)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
JoeSperrazza (
talk)
00:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.
NeilN
talk to me
00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloud Kite 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/Cloud Kite 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 22:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enola; or, Her fatal mistake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.