Hello, PanBK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Enjoy your stay with Wikipedia!

Emersoni 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Useful additions, but can you provide citations for the facts you've added? A source for the "comparable to the business end of a toilet brush" quote would be particularly good. -- Danny Yee 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't -- I got the description (and the speed figures) from some paper-back book on sale in the Cradle Mountain souvenir shop in Tasmania. But I also saw a wild wombat really close (about a meter away) and can confirm the description's accuracy...

An adorable creature, something like a cross between a cat and a bear in appearance. пан Бостон-Київський 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Find me a reference that lists more than three species of "kangaroo" and you are welcome to add it to the article. Everthing I have read says the Forester is not a seperate species and that there is only three species of kanagaroo. This excludes wallabies and wallaroos as they are not classed as "kangaroos" and are covered at Macropod. The Forester is also mentioned at both Eastern Grey Kangaroo and Western Grey Kangaroo. -- Martyman- (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, interestingly, [1] lists the two wallaroos as kangaroos as well, but, I guess, you are right overall. Eastern Kangaroo it is. How many "r"-s are in "Forrester", though? пан Бостон-Київський 04:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, and I notice some sources call the "antilopine wallaroo" a "antilopine kangaroo". The wikipedia as it stands has a seperate article on Wallaroos which lists the differences from kangaroos, so I don't think it is really worth changing. My encyclopedia and the wikipedia both seem to use one "R" in forester. -- Martyman- (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Image:Survivor-baby-wallaby.jpg

Hi. Do you have any objections to the suggestion of relocating the image from Kangaroo to the article on Wallabies?,,,,,<regards> Ariele 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

No objections, but the Wallaby article simply did not have the "roadkill" section. It still does not. The existing section in Kangaroo applies equally to kangaroos and wallabies while the distinction between them is already noted as fuzzy anyway. пан Бостон-Київський 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, fabby pics on Okavango Delta - I think the antelope may be a red lechwe.

Thanks. Yes, it is a lechwe (not sure about the "red" qualifier) -- no one else can run so fast in the water :-)

Would you mind if I uploaded your pics to Wikipedia Commons, so they can be used on other-language Wikipedias? (I think this is permitted regardless, under the GDFL, but I'd rather be courteous and ask!). Cheers, JackyR 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised, other-language Wikipedias can not reference the English images directly. Should not en:Image... or Image:en work? I hate to create copies instead of links... I do plan to use the images in Ukrainian Wikipedia, BTW, so mine is not an idle question.

BTW, you may also like my other pictures -- take a look at my contributions. пан Бостон-Київський 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh ver' nice! About use by other langs of pics: I don't have a strong grasp of how pics work within en.wiki. But Commons is essentially a picture and media library for the whole of Wikimedia. Best practice is to put the originals in Commons and then link to all from there. I can walk you through it if you like (tho I'm a bit of a newbie there meself) - seems like you have lots of good stuff... JackyR 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. My practice has so far been to edit an article and insert the not-yet uploaded image. Then click on the "preview". There will be a "broken" link to the image. I follow the link and get an invitation from WikiPedia to upload the image. How do you link to an image from the "Commons"?

Uploading to Commons

1. Go to Commons Main Page (from the link at the bottom of WP Main Page).
2. Start an account there, if you can be bothered (will make communication easier, as at WP).
3. Hit "Upload file" in the Participate menu.
4. Hit "Choose file" to navigate to your own file.
5. Fill in the rest of the boxes on the form. Ideally:
   1. click on "Summary" by the summary box; follow the link and copy/paste the contents of the "Template:Information" box (for help filling this in, click on the link "Template:Information" and read the template's Talk page).
   2. use the Licensing drop-down menu to choose a license.
   3. check "Watch this page"
6. When you've done all that, hit the "Upload file" button.

After it's uploaded, you can arse around looking for categories to add to the page, to make it more findable. Start from the Category Tree: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryTree.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&m=a&cat=Topics or just type "Commons:Categories" into the search box. I can help with that.

If it's any use, take a look at my Commons User page: clicking on any pic will take you to the pic's page. I got the nice people at the Commons:Help Desk to check my first uploads, so my practice should now be OK...

Oh, what I forgot to say is, to link to a Commons picture from a WP article, just type the pic page name, the same as you do now (I think). Eg [[Image:Mopane worm on mopane tree.jpg|thumb|240px|right|Mopane worm on mopane tree, Botswana.]]

Good luck! JackyR 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Jacky! However, I'd like to see the Bug 5283 resolved, so I don't have to waste my time and WikiPedia's bandwidth on reuploading the 70+ images I already have there. Please, vote for this problem's prompt resolution, everyone! пан Бостон-Київський 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I can't remember my username/password to the Media-wiki! I'm trying to find it out: meanwhile, I'll just have to give quiet moral support! (What you're suggesting is obviously right....) May be of more concrete use shortly! JackyR 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Not what you're after, but if you get impatient, it could help... [2]. I guess automoving has gone on the software To Do list, so could be a while. JackyR 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have tagged your image, please change it to appropriate tag -- Nivus ^(talk) 11:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi! Great photos, gratulations! But please, upload them on commons - they will be more useful for other Wikipedias. Greetings from Kraków :-) 193.25.0.9 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I understand. My main concern is with the double standard used for labeling what is terrorism and what isn't. For instance the quotes,

"If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

and

"Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."

confirm that the IDF is also a calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political. However, we are not seeing this being labeled as terrorist (the second quote is less threatening). Epsilonsa 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• "The quotes you provided don't outline a tactics much different from that used by NATO's forces agaisnt Serbia — justly. Turning a country's "clock back", however harsh a measure it might be, is not terrorism, because it does not imply targeting civilians — only the infrastructure. But this is a debate over whether or not Israel is using terrorist methods (and in my POV it does not). That Hezbollah does use terrorist methods (and quite explicitly aims to continue) is a settled fact (which you do not dispute), so please stop reverting my edits pretending they represent a POV. Thank you," пан Бостон-Київський 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Civilian don't have to be killed in order for an action to be considered terrorism. The threat and violence involved in destroying infrastructure is against civilian assets and therefore can be considered terrorism. Justification, however, is achieved by consensus, and no consensus has deemed Israel's actions to be terrorist. But unlike your NATO example, no consensus has justified Israels actions either. There are pretty much two conflicting parties of thought on who are the perpetrators and who are the justified.

As you stated, it's your POV that Israel is not using terrorism. There are many conflicting POVs out there that would disagree. There are even some who would consider Hezbollah's intention of making Israel not safe for Israelis justified. I was acting in good faith to modify (what you call reverting) your edit to make the section as neutral as possible, since the labeling of anything as terrorism in this conflict is a touchy and controversial issue. I was not "pretending" it represented a POV.

I put the details of my edit on the talk page, but nobody else has yet responded. What do you think we should do without a consensus? If you're going to re-insert "terrorize," "terrorism," or some other form of the word back into the passage, I won't stop you. I was simply trying to be balanced.

-- Epsilonsa 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• No, destroying of enemy's infrastructure is a "normal" Act of War, not of Terror. All warring countries do this to each other. Acts of War are not pretty, but they are not terrorism. пан Бостон-Київський 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, in this case, they are destroying Lebanese, not Hezbollah infrastructure, which is not explicitly the enemy's. But I was just being overly tactful, removing what I thought could potentially be a heated POV item. Go ahead and re-insert terrorism if you want and if anyone has a real problem with it, they can post their concerns on the talk page and have it removed if necessary.

-- Epsilonsa 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Contrary to your assertion, Lebanon is a very explicit enemy of Israel. Lebanon attacked Israel in 1948 and (unlike Jordan and Egypt) is yet to make peace. пан Бостон-Київський 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

By that definition, the Israelis are also terrorists (which I do believe to be true). Keep in mind the old saying, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's a loaded word, becoming more meaningless by the day as it's misused by the world's powers who want to advance their own agendas and are quite willing to engage in terrorism to accomplish their goals (but of course complain indignantly when someone dares call them "terrorist".) That's my story and I'm sticking to it. + ILike2BeAnonymous 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, if I allow you to insert the loaded term "terrorist" regarding Hezbollah, then you must permit me to do the same regarding Israel (and believe me, I can find plenty of references to back me up). See how that works? + ILike2BeAnonymous 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Peter Menkhorst in A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia categorically states that the Red-legged Pademelon is solitary. The Tasmanian Pademelon is said to be solitary "but aggregations may form at favoured feeding sites". He gives no information on the Red-necked Pademelon. Thanks for directing my attention to this; I'll clarify the article. Frickeg 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It has been long time decided that images with Wikipedia only permission are not acceptable anymore. Only images released under a free content license Wikipedia accepts or public domain images (with the exception of Wikipedia:Non-free content are allowed. Your image was marked free for use Wikipedia-wide which is not free enough and is the reason why it was deleted. Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you uploaded Image:PanBK-logo.png, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{ GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{ GFDL-self}} or {{ PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Platipus-on-the-surface.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think that's a very good idea. We want to have images kept together in one place, not scattered about everywhere. Here are a couple of reasons I can think of for this off the top of my head:

1) Images may get uploaded to many separate Wikis separately if we have no central repository, wasting huge amounts of storage.

2) People wanting to look at a gallery of images don't have to search through every single Wikipedia to do so.

There are probably also technical reasons. I agree that a sytem level approach is probably better, and agree that some of your suggestions on the bug report would be an improvement if technically possible (e.g. automatically moving them to Commons would be ideal). For now I am trying to get a bot to place this message on people's talk pages so I don't have to - if the images can't be moved in an automated way, which it seems they can't, this is the best option for now. Richard001 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:Ihrc.10.anniv.leaflet2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright 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 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 uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor ( talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ihrc.10.anniv.leaflet2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor ( talk) 15:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Though most likely unintentional, I got a chuckle out of your edit summary for Isadora Duncan diff, "add a missing coma". My first thought was that I remembered she had such a horrible death and to have a coma on top of that too would have seemed excessive. :) TGIF —  MrDolomite •  Talk 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow, it's a long time since I edited in this area - mostly I'm helping out around Australian politics nowadays. Of course I don't doubt your account - Menkhorst must have been mistaken, but presumably he got this information from somewhere. I wonder if we can find a source to back up their occasional gregariousness (to avoid OR)?

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

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse ( consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot ( talk) 19:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Planned Parenthood. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. My addition simply cited the autobiography of the organization's founder -- making no indication of my own point of view on the matter at all. пан Бостон-Київський ( talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Here's what you added:

As Ms. Sanger wrote in her autobiography, the motivation was to "stop multiplication of the unfit" which "appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment"

It looks like two small fragments of two quotes. If you're going to quote someone, it should be the full quote which would give the most context. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Planned Parenthood. 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. Please note that Planned Parenthood falls under the Arbitration ruling covering all abortion topics, limiting editors to one revert per day. See the top of Talk:Planned Parenthood for details. Binksternet ( talk) 01:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kangaroo-in-flight.jpg). I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely,  Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: duanerhurst@freeenglishsite.com -- 65.130.202.239 ( talk) 01:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, I would really appreciate your input at this DR. -- McZusatz ( talk) 10:34, 27 October 2013 (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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, PanBK. 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

Hello, PanBK. 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 file File:Lilac-breasted-roller-on-stick.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Low quality, can be replaced with files at c:Category:Coracias caudatus.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 14:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply