Welcome to Wikipedia, Pbrower2a! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Marek. 69 talk 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
- While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
- Then click on "templates",
- Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
- If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.
- Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Use talk pages to discuss improving articles, not as a soap-box for personal opinions.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not use talk pages such as
Freedom House for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are
not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you. (I
nicely expressed concern about mis-use of the talk page at
Freedom House on 1 September 2011.)
Kiefer.
Wolfowitz 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The cycle is not the cycle unless one person completes it. Four players accumulating the hits is a trivial coincidence. — KV5 • Talk • 01:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am asking you to revert your change on Hitting for the cycle. The scope of that article clearly states that it is about single-player cycles, the only cycles recognized by major statistical sources like Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, as well as Major League Baseball. Your addition of trivia is adversely affecting the article's integrity. Continued disruptive insertions (see history) could result in further warnings or a block. — KV5 • Talk • 01:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Batting order (baseball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Williams ( 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, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Future Fund.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Consequences of Nazism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of El Alamein ( 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) 11:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dictator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Hungary ( 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) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanislav (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley ( 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) 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
The Minor barnstar |
| Thanks for your edits to Bruglary. Bearian ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
S-Video, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. --
DonIago (
talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Call signs in North America may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- chosen to represent the [[Roman Numeral]] 12 which is the channel on which the station broadcasts (as is done on [[KXII]] in the Red River Valley of Texas and Oklahoma; the former WIIC (now [[WPXI]])
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fictional country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double-cross ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Streets named after Adolf Hitler may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- opposite of Schlosspark Lichterfelde. Now a soccerfield. Still a stadion next to it
- | Memel (now [[Klaipėda]], Lithuania
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Interstate 80 may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |}
- * {{jct|state=NV|I|580}) in [[Reno, Nevada]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Anachronism, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Anachronism. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Anachronism, you may be
blocked from editing.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 15:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "anachronism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 July 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning anachronism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
Sunray (
talk) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at
Anachronism.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 00:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a
general rule, talk pages such as
Talk:Totalitarianism are for discussion related to improving the article,
not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages.
Please note that the discussion you added your
original research to is well and truly defunct.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mediterranean climate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sierra Nevada. 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) 09:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Recently saw your edits on the page Zinc cyanide where you edited the subscripts for the synthesis section. I saw you changed Zn(CN)2 to Zn(CN)4. I think you are mistaken because the oxidation state of zinc is a positive two charge while the charge on the cyanide anion is negative one. Only by combining one Zinc with two cyanides can this compound be made neutral and stable. In the future please check my cited reference or, at the very least, find a creditable reference of your own before make changes to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderSkunk ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
What I saw was sulfur in the wrong oxidation state, and that was the intended edit. Zinc of course is in the +2 oxidation state in all normal compounds. Mix-up unintended. Pbrower2a ( talk) 12:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I was mistaken as to your intentions, my bad. Thanks for catching my zinc sulfate errors. I should have first looked at the change notes to see what you actually did instead of just noticing it was off. Sorry if I came off as condescending. Happy editing and thank you again for fixing my mistakes.
ThunderSkunk (
talk) 13:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secret police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. 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) 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerrymandering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson. 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) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure this is truly an example of an appeal to authority? It doesn't quite seem to fit the bill - they're not saying they're experts on cigarettes and as such should be trusted on them. Its an appeal to respect or honor, but it doesn't quite seem to be an appeal to authority per se. What're your thoughts? 24.252.141.175 ( talk) 05:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced authority -- the consumer preferences of a highly-respected profession (an unnamed national survey) on a commonplace object. If an advertisement were of something more benign than cigarettes -- apparel, ballpoint pens, marques of automobile (I remember when Buick was widely known as "the Doctor's Car"), literary magazines, or choices of vacation -- it would still be abuse of the authority that physicians have. It is the ad agency and a tobacco company, and not the medical profession, that attributed authority (more doctors smoke XXX Cigarettes) that does not exist.
Physicians have legitimately accrued some authority; they can tell people to change their ways. They can tell a patient to stop smoking, stop drinking, change a diet to lose weight, move their asthmatic children away from respiratory distress, avoid illegal drugs, eschew reckless sexuality... People with such authority have good cause to not cheapen it by applying it to irrelevancies. Physicians lose credibility when they become hucksters. For good reason we rarely see physicians appearing on TV to promote anything other than their medical practice.
The fault with the fallacy of an appeal to authority is not that authority is always to be distrusted; if a physician tells a drinker who has a liver in the early stages of cirrhosis must stop drinking, then that authority is valid. The appeal to authority becomes fallacious when the authority is suspect. The advertising agency that created the ad in question abused the legitimate authority of physicians, an authority that physicians legitimately need for doing their job effectively. Pbrower2a ( talk) 10:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you were active recently on the argument from authority page. There's currently a lot of discussion on the page right now, you might be interested in coming and chiming in! 97.106.144.198 ( talk) 16:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endothermic process, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation. 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) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Dual carriageway may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- highways have been turned into undivided highways either by widening the lanes of an existing road (for example US Highway 33 between [[Elkhart, Indiana|Elkhart]] and [[Goshen, Indiana|Goshen]] in
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Pbrower2a. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apex predator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hen. 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) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there - I see you were active on the argument from authority page awhile back. It looks like there's some disagreement on the matter now, maybe having an extra voice like your's would help? FL or Atlanta ( talk) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pbrower2a. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish surname, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robinson and Robbins ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Uncited additions to Apex predator
Hi, I'm not sure what led you to make uncited additions to this article as you are not a first-time editor and I don't feel that issuing a warning template would be appropriate. Let me therefore say simply that Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia; this means using Reliable Sources instead of editors' own knowledge or opinions, which is called " Original Research" in Wikipedia policy and is strictly forbidden here. Essentially, articles must reflect the overall understanding of the topic in the scientific literature. I do hope that is clear. Further, the article is in my view essentially complete and fully cited, so it would be appreciated if any substantial changes, should any such be considered necessary, would be proposed on the talk page initially. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are wasting a lot of time trying to make changes to that article which are wholly against Wikipedia policy – indeed, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources are core pillars of the whole project – the encyclopedia would collapse without them. You are continuing to argue your uncited personal opinions about content (dogs and Inuit, for instance), without looking at the problem, which is that editors must not attempt to rely on their own opinions, but must begin from reliable sources. It really is essential that you understand this if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, as these policies are how it works. I urge you again to read the policies carefully and thoroughly, as they are the nub of the matter. There is no future in basing your thinking on WP:Original Research.
- I do hope this is clear. I wish you well, and thank you for taking the time to understand these core policies. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 06:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am very sorry to see that you have now tried again to add uncited materials to the same article on the same topic. I have made clear above the extremely well-defined policies above, which I explained equally clearly are central pillars of the encyclopedia. It would be very helpful if you could take the time to look over the relevant policies: this should not take long. You have been reverted repeatedly with polite explanations, and you have been given repeated and detailed warnings on ignoring policy. Your continued attempts to edit-war uncited materials into the article are becoming disruptive editing, for which severe sanctions apply. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do hope this is clear. I wish you well, and thank you for taking the time to understand these core policies. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 06:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The addition is short, and it links to other Wikipedia articles. Hunting and fishing between humans and dogs is well known behavior about in the same level as that dogs wag their tails.
Do I need to cite that dogs wag their tails? Pbrower2a ( talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Neither length nor links can justify WP:OR, uncited additions. No reliable source says that man-and-dog is an apex predator, nor are they so considered. Your opinion that they are is I suppose a case of WP:SYNTH, a synthesis of various things, each of which might be true, but their synthesis is a step too far. Humans hunt, true. Dogs are predators, true. Humans and dogs are powerful teams, true. Apex predators are powerful hunters, true. Humans and dogs are apex predators: WP:SYNTH - not true. You are not being asked to cite the obvious: you are being asked not to claim the untrue because you feel it ought to be so, that's all. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
But because of suppression of other large predators (bears, wolves, and big cats) in much of the world, humans and dogs are by default the top predators in large parts of the world. Where such animals as wolves, bears, big cats, crocodilians, sharks, and giant snakes remain, dogs and humans may not be the top of the food chain. Thus in Indiana, where there are no wolves, bears, Big Cats, crocodilians, sharks, or giant snakes, humans and dogs are top predators. In Florida, alligators have dogs as prey and are not top predators there. Humans are obvious prey for tigers in India; lions, leopards, and hyenas in Africa; and crocodiles anywhere that there are crocodiles.
Is it because human hunting or fishing with dogs is not 'nature'? There is already some ambiguity about some human behavior (animal husbandry leading to commercial slaughter of animals as food) as predation. But this said, "armed human with dogs" is really-bad news for anything that could be prey for either. Herding of animals of any kind by dogs? Such is also behavior of wolves. Pbrower2a ( talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your first paragraph: you are reasoning from your own beliefs, not from reliable sources. This is " original research", which is forbidden on Wikipedia.
- Your second paragraph: no, this is nothing to do with "nature", everything to do with what the reliable and verifiable scientific sources do or do not address. Once again you are reasoning from your own beliefs. Once again, you are trying to inject original research into the article, which is not permitted. It really would make discussion easier if you took the time to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest these core policies, as without that understanding your ideas and any discussion simply go around in unprofitable circles. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Here is a start with a reference to a book on the early collaboration of early modern humans with the wolf. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/hunting-with-wolves-humans-conquered-the-world-neanderthal-evolution
Any collaboration between humans and wolves (wolves are recognized as top predators) gave early Man an advantage over any early-human competitor as a hunter. Wolves and humans adapted together, but although modern humans have evolved little physically, Man has selectively bred wolves to be just as lethal as wolves as predators to everything but humans and perhaps (in some cases, as with sheepdogs) livestock. Wolves and early dogs collaborated in the kill and (as packs) scared off such predators as big cats, bears, and hyenas that would have chased off humans to get the meat. It might be ironic that the best friend of Early Man was one of the most skillful predators on Earth -- but it was a winning proposition for both Man and Wolf, and in turn Man and Dog. The human-wold collaboration was safer for the wolf who didn't have to confront a large herbivore with hooves, horns, and teeth.
But let me cite some of the material:
(quote) “Early wolf-dogs would have tracked and harassed animals like elk and bison and would have hounded them until they tired,” said Shipman. “Then humans would have killed them with spears or bows and arrows.
“This meant the dogs did not need to approach these large cornered animals to finish them off – often the most dangerous part of a hunt – while humans didn’t have to expend energy in tracking and wearing down prey. Dogs would have done that. Then we shared the meat. It was a win-win situation.” (unquote)
There was a subtle change in a small part of the human body, one that distinguishes modern Man from all other Great Apes, including Neanderthal Man, who did not survive even if he was a formidable hunter in his ownright:
(quote)
Consider the whites of our eyes, she states. The wolf possesses white sclera as does Homo sapiens though, crucially, it is the only primate that has them.
“The main advantage of having white sclera is that it is very easy to work out what another person is gazing at,” added Shipman. “It provides a very useful form of non-verbal communication and would have been of immense help to early hunters. They would been able to communicate silently but very effectively.”
Thus the mutation conferring white sclera could have become increasingly common among modern humans 40,000 years ago and would have conferred an advantage on those who were hunting with dogs.
By contrast, there is no evidence of any kind that Neanderthals had any relationship with dogs and instead they appear to have continued to hunt mammoths and elks on their own, a punishing method for acquiring food. Already stressed by the arrival of modern humans in Europe, our alliance with wolves would have been the final straw for Neanderthals. (unquote)
These look like citations from a book.
Wolves have since evolved into dogs, but dogs are just as lethal as wolves when hunting with humans. Dogs make humans into better hunters. Add to this, the human family and the wolf pack have similar structures, which explains the durability of the human-dog relationship. Wolves (and their descendants, dogs) have partially shaped human behavior.
Few wild animals desire to meet either Man or a pack of dogs, let alone any combination of Man and Dog. Yes, a leopard might kill any single dog as prey, regardless of the size of a dog, yet a pack of dogs can scare off one leopard. A pack of dogs might be as lethal as one tiger. Ask me about my experience working one day on the 2010 Census.
It may seem like hyperbole to recognize the human-wolf (that became the human-canine) relationship as the most important of all relationships between humans and large, lethal predators. The only relationship between Man and another carnivore to last so much as a tenth of the time is that between humans and a small, even more lethal carnivore -- the domestic cat who has suppressed the population of rodents that would nibble away on human stores of grain if unchecked. If wolves and their canine descendants made Man an effective hunter, the cat made Man able to maintain an agrarian civilization. If those are not the most important relationships between humans and lethal carnivores, then what is? (OK, cats are too small to be apex predators, as is so of some small breeds of domestic dogs, even if they have many similarities with the Big Cats in build and behavior).
Your criticism is welcome. The link to the book is now void. I want the argument to appear in a compact form. Pbrower2a ( talk) 23:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would honestly help enormously if you read the policies. The book you mention does not appear to talk at all about "apex predators", the subject of the article. As I explained a while back, you are not allowed to assemble ideas in this way: Wikipedia calls this synthesis.
- Suppose you read a book which says dogs and humans form an effective hunting team and cite that. Then you find a paper on management which says that teams are powerful, and cite that. Then you find an ethology PhD which says that wild dogs in Africa hunt in teams. Excited, you rush to the anthropology and archaeology library to find a shelf of books on the Out of Africa hypothesis. Finally, you locate a journal paper on apex predation which says that apex predators are important in ecosystems. Now you conclude that dogs were critically important in making early humans into apex predators on the plains of Africa. This is WP:SYNTH.
- No, what you must do is find one or more review articles which state, IN SO MANY WORDS, that man-and-dog constitute a novel kind of apex predator. If those articles are in reputable journals, then the opinion is worth citing in the article. If not, not, and that's an end to it: that's what Wikipedia's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies are about. It really would be courteous of you to at least look through the policies so you understand that this is how Wikipedia works: the encyclopedia is a summary of what scientists (and engineers, politicians, ...) have been reliably reported to have said. Wikipedia is not a place where editors, however distinguished and however great their personal but unverifiable knowledge, can assemble ideas into their own theories and constructs. I do hope this is clear: it is core to how the encyclopedia works, and I have made repeated attempts to explain it both simply and in your own terms.
- I shall be away for a while now; I urge you to resist the urge to edit, and to take the time to read and understand the relevant policies that I have now many times described and linked for you. Enjoy the summer. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E-ZPass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Bridge ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Pbrower2a. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I stumbled upon your edit to U.S. Route 136 in Indiana. Although you are correct in asking for a citation, that is not the proper way. Please refer to WP:CITENEED and use the proper wiki markup. Good day. FunksBrother ( talk) 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
As a courtesy to all other editors and readers, it would be great if you could ensure that anything you add to an article is cited to the same quality and style as the rest of the citations in that article. As it happens, Starfish is a Featured Article and it uses citation templates, so in a case like that you ought as a matter of principle to use the same kind of citation template as is in use. By the same token, you should not be adding uncited materials to any article. Many thanks for your co-operation and understanding. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi. Please see: Talk:Ryan Costello (baseball) ... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Costello (baseball). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Man-eating species has been nominated for deletion
Category:Man-eating species has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Regarding this edit, I have reverted it for several reasons, in decreasing order of impact:
- Most importantly, you apparently didn't read the news article, because there's a direct quote from MDOT saying that the interchange configuration is not going to change. We don't generally include regular maintenance projects in history sections. (Now, if they were converting the interchange layout to a stack, for example, that would warrant inclusion.)
- Your text contains an opinion ("obsolete") that isn't supported by the source. We should never use include an opinion on a topic without it being supported by a source, and in many cases, we should say where that opinion came from.
- You added a bare URL as a source. This is problematic in general because it makes it harder for readers to assess the quality and relevancy of a citation without clicking the link. At a minimum, if you're adding a citation to an article, you should provide author, date, title, and publication or publisher. More information is better than less, but those are the minimums. Preferably, you should attempt to use a citation template if the article employs those as it will consistently display the citation details.
- Your text contains quite the embarrassing typo, saying that work would conclude 19 years before it started.
- You added text to a Featured Article that doesn't match up; namely you spelled out "Interstate 69" and "Interstate 94" even though no Interstate designation is spelled out after the very first section of the article.
Please keep these concepts in mind in the future. I will note that you received feedback in 2019 about using citation templates in articles the employ them. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as
Talk:Intelligence quotient for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the
talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.
Sundayclose (
talk) 19:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the article
Cat. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at
Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Pbrower2a! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Marek. 69 talk 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
- While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
- Then click on "templates",
- Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
- If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.
- Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Use talk pages to discuss improving articles, not as a soap-box for personal opinions.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not use talk pages such as
Freedom House for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are
not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you. (I
nicely expressed concern about mis-use of the talk page at
Freedom House on 1 September 2011.)
Kiefer.
Wolfowitz 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The cycle is not the cycle unless one person completes it. Four players accumulating the hits is a trivial coincidence. — KV5 • Talk • 01:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am asking you to revert your change on Hitting for the cycle. The scope of that article clearly states that it is about single-player cycles, the only cycles recognized by major statistical sources like Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, as well as Major League Baseball. Your addition of trivia is adversely affecting the article's integrity. Continued disruptive insertions (see history) could result in further warnings or a block. — KV5 • Talk • 01:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Batting order (baseball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Williams ( 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, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Future Fund.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Consequences of Nazism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of El Alamein ( 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) 11:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dictator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Hungary ( 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) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanislav (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley ( 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) 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
|
The Minor barnstar |
| Thanks for your edits to Bruglary. Bearian ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
S-Video, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. --
DonIago (
talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Call signs in North America may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- chosen to represent the [[Roman Numeral]] 12 which is the channel on which the station broadcasts (as is done on [[KXII]] in the Red River Valley of Texas and Oklahoma; the former WIIC (now [[WPXI]])
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fictional country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double-cross ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Streets named after Adolf Hitler may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- opposite of Schlosspark Lichterfelde. Now a soccerfield. Still a stadion next to it
- | Memel (now [[Klaipėda]], Lithuania
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Interstate 80 may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |}
- * {{jct|state=NV|I|580}) in [[Reno, Nevada]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Anachronism, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Anachronism. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Anachronism, you may be
blocked from editing.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 15:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "anachronism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 July 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning anachronism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
Sunray (
talk) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at
Anachronism.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 00:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a
general rule, talk pages such as
Talk:Totalitarianism are for discussion related to improving the article,
not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages.
Please note that the discussion you added your
original research to is well and truly defunct.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mediterranean climate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sierra Nevada. 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) 09:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Recently saw your edits on the page Zinc cyanide where you edited the subscripts for the synthesis section. I saw you changed Zn(CN)2 to Zn(CN)4. I think you are mistaken because the oxidation state of zinc is a positive two charge while the charge on the cyanide anion is negative one. Only by combining one Zinc with two cyanides can this compound be made neutral and stable. In the future please check my cited reference or, at the very least, find a creditable reference of your own before make changes to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderSkunk ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
What I saw was sulfur in the wrong oxidation state, and that was the intended edit. Zinc of course is in the +2 oxidation state in all normal compounds. Mix-up unintended. Pbrower2a ( talk) 12:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I was mistaken as to your intentions, my bad. Thanks for catching my zinc sulfate errors. I should have first looked at the change notes to see what you actually did instead of just noticing it was off. Sorry if I came off as condescending. Happy editing and thank you again for fixing my mistakes.
ThunderSkunk (
talk) 13:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secret police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. 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) 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerrymandering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson. 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) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure this is truly an example of an appeal to authority? It doesn't quite seem to fit the bill - they're not saying they're experts on cigarettes and as such should be trusted on them. Its an appeal to respect or honor, but it doesn't quite seem to be an appeal to authority per se. What're your thoughts? 24.252.141.175 ( talk) 05:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced authority -- the consumer preferences of a highly-respected profession (an unnamed national survey) on a commonplace object. If an advertisement were of something more benign than cigarettes -- apparel, ballpoint pens, marques of automobile (I remember when Buick was widely known as "the Doctor's Car"), literary magazines, or choices of vacation -- it would still be abuse of the authority that physicians have. It is the ad agency and a tobacco company, and not the medical profession, that attributed authority (more doctors smoke XXX Cigarettes) that does not exist.
Physicians have legitimately accrued some authority; they can tell people to change their ways. They can tell a patient to stop smoking, stop drinking, change a diet to lose weight, move their asthmatic children away from respiratory distress, avoid illegal drugs, eschew reckless sexuality... People with such authority have good cause to not cheapen it by applying it to irrelevancies. Physicians lose credibility when they become hucksters. For good reason we rarely see physicians appearing on TV to promote anything other than their medical practice.
The fault with the fallacy of an appeal to authority is not that authority is always to be distrusted; if a physician tells a drinker who has a liver in the early stages of cirrhosis must stop drinking, then that authority is valid. The appeal to authority becomes fallacious when the authority is suspect. The advertising agency that created the ad in question abused the legitimate authority of physicians, an authority that physicians legitimately need for doing their job effectively. Pbrower2a ( talk) 10:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you were active recently on the argument from authority page. There's currently a lot of discussion on the page right now, you might be interested in coming and chiming in! 97.106.144.198 ( talk) 16:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endothermic process, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation. 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) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Dual carriageway may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- highways have been turned into undivided highways either by widening the lanes of an existing road (for example US Highway 33 between [[Elkhart, Indiana|Elkhart]] and [[Goshen, Indiana|Goshen]] in
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Pbrower2a. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apex predator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hen. 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) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there - I see you were active on the argument from authority page awhile back. It looks like there's some disagreement on the matter now, maybe having an extra voice like your's would help? FL or Atlanta ( talk) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pbrower2a. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish surname, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robinson and Robbins ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Uncited additions to Apex predator
Hi, I'm not sure what led you to make uncited additions to this article as you are not a first-time editor and I don't feel that issuing a warning template would be appropriate. Let me therefore say simply that Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia; this means using Reliable Sources instead of editors' own knowledge or opinions, which is called " Original Research" in Wikipedia policy and is strictly forbidden here. Essentially, articles must reflect the overall understanding of the topic in the scientific literature. I do hope that is clear. Further, the article is in my view essentially complete and fully cited, so it would be appreciated if any substantial changes, should any such be considered necessary, would be proposed on the talk page initially. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are wasting a lot of time trying to make changes to that article which are wholly against Wikipedia policy – indeed, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources are core pillars of the whole project – the encyclopedia would collapse without them. You are continuing to argue your uncited personal opinions about content (dogs and Inuit, for instance), without looking at the problem, which is that editors must not attempt to rely on their own opinions, but must begin from reliable sources. It really is essential that you understand this if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, as these policies are how it works. I urge you again to read the policies carefully and thoroughly, as they are the nub of the matter. There is no future in basing your thinking on WP:Original Research.
- I do hope this is clear. I wish you well, and thank you for taking the time to understand these core policies. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 06:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am very sorry to see that you have now tried again to add uncited materials to the same article on the same topic. I have made clear above the extremely well-defined policies above, which I explained equally clearly are central pillars of the encyclopedia. It would be very helpful if you could take the time to look over the relevant policies: this should not take long. You have been reverted repeatedly with polite explanations, and you have been given repeated and detailed warnings on ignoring policy. Your continued attempts to edit-war uncited materials into the article are becoming disruptive editing, for which severe sanctions apply. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do hope this is clear. I wish you well, and thank you for taking the time to understand these core policies. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 06:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The addition is short, and it links to other Wikipedia articles. Hunting and fishing between humans and dogs is well known behavior about in the same level as that dogs wag their tails.
Do I need to cite that dogs wag their tails? Pbrower2a ( talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Neither length nor links can justify WP:OR, uncited additions. No reliable source says that man-and-dog is an apex predator, nor are they so considered. Your opinion that they are is I suppose a case of WP:SYNTH, a synthesis of various things, each of which might be true, but their synthesis is a step too far. Humans hunt, true. Dogs are predators, true. Humans and dogs are powerful teams, true. Apex predators are powerful hunters, true. Humans and dogs are apex predators: WP:SYNTH - not true. You are not being asked to cite the obvious: you are being asked not to claim the untrue because you feel it ought to be so, that's all. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
But because of suppression of other large predators (bears, wolves, and big cats) in much of the world, humans and dogs are by default the top predators in large parts of the world. Where such animals as wolves, bears, big cats, crocodilians, sharks, and giant snakes remain, dogs and humans may not be the top of the food chain. Thus in Indiana, where there are no wolves, bears, Big Cats, crocodilians, sharks, or giant snakes, humans and dogs are top predators. In Florida, alligators have dogs as prey and are not top predators there. Humans are obvious prey for tigers in India; lions, leopards, and hyenas in Africa; and crocodiles anywhere that there are crocodiles.
Is it because human hunting or fishing with dogs is not 'nature'? There is already some ambiguity about some human behavior (animal husbandry leading to commercial slaughter of animals as food) as predation. But this said, "armed human with dogs" is really-bad news for anything that could be prey for either. Herding of animals of any kind by dogs? Such is also behavior of wolves. Pbrower2a ( talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your first paragraph: you are reasoning from your own beliefs, not from reliable sources. This is " original research", which is forbidden on Wikipedia.
- Your second paragraph: no, this is nothing to do with "nature", everything to do with what the reliable and verifiable scientific sources do or do not address. Once again you are reasoning from your own beliefs. Once again, you are trying to inject original research into the article, which is not permitted. It really would make discussion easier if you took the time to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest these core policies, as without that understanding your ideas and any discussion simply go around in unprofitable circles. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Here is a start with a reference to a book on the early collaboration of early modern humans with the wolf. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/hunting-with-wolves-humans-conquered-the-world-neanderthal-evolution
Any collaboration between humans and wolves (wolves are recognized as top predators) gave early Man an advantage over any early-human competitor as a hunter. Wolves and humans adapted together, but although modern humans have evolved little physically, Man has selectively bred wolves to be just as lethal as wolves as predators to everything but humans and perhaps (in some cases, as with sheepdogs) livestock. Wolves and early dogs collaborated in the kill and (as packs) scared off such predators as big cats, bears, and hyenas that would have chased off humans to get the meat. It might be ironic that the best friend of Early Man was one of the most skillful predators on Earth -- but it was a winning proposition for both Man and Wolf, and in turn Man and Dog. The human-wold collaboration was safer for the wolf who didn't have to confront a large herbivore with hooves, horns, and teeth.
But let me cite some of the material:
(quote) “Early wolf-dogs would have tracked and harassed animals like elk and bison and would have hounded them until they tired,” said Shipman. “Then humans would have killed them with spears or bows and arrows.
“This meant the dogs did not need to approach these large cornered animals to finish them off – often the most dangerous part of a hunt – while humans didn’t have to expend energy in tracking and wearing down prey. Dogs would have done that. Then we shared the meat. It was a win-win situation.” (unquote)
There was a subtle change in a small part of the human body, one that distinguishes modern Man from all other Great Apes, including Neanderthal Man, who did not survive even if he was a formidable hunter in his ownright:
(quote)
Consider the whites of our eyes, she states. The wolf possesses white sclera as does Homo sapiens though, crucially, it is the only primate that has them.
“The main advantage of having white sclera is that it is very easy to work out what another person is gazing at,” added Shipman. “It provides a very useful form of non-verbal communication and would have been of immense help to early hunters. They would been able to communicate silently but very effectively.”
Thus the mutation conferring white sclera could have become increasingly common among modern humans 40,000 years ago and would have conferred an advantage on those who were hunting with dogs.
By contrast, there is no evidence of any kind that Neanderthals had any relationship with dogs and instead they appear to have continued to hunt mammoths and elks on their own, a punishing method for acquiring food. Already stressed by the arrival of modern humans in Europe, our alliance with wolves would have been the final straw for Neanderthals. (unquote)
These look like citations from a book.
Wolves have since evolved into dogs, but dogs are just as lethal as wolves when hunting with humans. Dogs make humans into better hunters. Add to this, the human family and the wolf pack have similar structures, which explains the durability of the human-dog relationship. Wolves (and their descendants, dogs) have partially shaped human behavior.
Few wild animals desire to meet either Man or a pack of dogs, let alone any combination of Man and Dog. Yes, a leopard might kill any single dog as prey, regardless of the size of a dog, yet a pack of dogs can scare off one leopard. A pack of dogs might be as lethal as one tiger. Ask me about my experience working one day on the 2010 Census.
It may seem like hyperbole to recognize the human-wolf (that became the human-canine) relationship as the most important of all relationships between humans and large, lethal predators. The only relationship between Man and another carnivore to last so much as a tenth of the time is that between humans and a small, even more lethal carnivore -- the domestic cat who has suppressed the population of rodents that would nibble away on human stores of grain if unchecked. If wolves and their canine descendants made Man an effective hunter, the cat made Man able to maintain an agrarian civilization. If those are not the most important relationships between humans and lethal carnivores, then what is? (OK, cats are too small to be apex predators, as is so of some small breeds of domestic dogs, even if they have many similarities with the Big Cats in build and behavior).
Your criticism is welcome. The link to the book is now void. I want the argument to appear in a compact form. Pbrower2a ( talk) 23:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would honestly help enormously if you read the policies. The book you mention does not appear to talk at all about "apex predators", the subject of the article. As I explained a while back, you are not allowed to assemble ideas in this way: Wikipedia calls this synthesis.
- Suppose you read a book which says dogs and humans form an effective hunting team and cite that. Then you find a paper on management which says that teams are powerful, and cite that. Then you find an ethology PhD which says that wild dogs in Africa hunt in teams. Excited, you rush to the anthropology and archaeology library to find a shelf of books on the Out of Africa hypothesis. Finally, you locate a journal paper on apex predation which says that apex predators are important in ecosystems. Now you conclude that dogs were critically important in making early humans into apex predators on the plains of Africa. This is WP:SYNTH.
- No, what you must do is find one or more review articles which state, IN SO MANY WORDS, that man-and-dog constitute a novel kind of apex predator. If those articles are in reputable journals, then the opinion is worth citing in the article. If not, not, and that's an end to it: that's what Wikipedia's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies are about. It really would be courteous of you to at least look through the policies so you understand that this is how Wikipedia works: the encyclopedia is a summary of what scientists (and engineers, politicians, ...) have been reliably reported to have said. Wikipedia is not a place where editors, however distinguished and however great their personal but unverifiable knowledge, can assemble ideas into their own theories and constructs. I do hope this is clear: it is core to how the encyclopedia works, and I have made repeated attempts to explain it both simply and in your own terms.
- I shall be away for a while now; I urge you to resist the urge to edit, and to take the time to read and understand the relevant policies that I have now many times described and linked for you. Enjoy the summer. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E-ZPass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Bridge ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Pbrower2a. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I stumbled upon your edit to U.S. Route 136 in Indiana. Although you are correct in asking for a citation, that is not the proper way. Please refer to WP:CITENEED and use the proper wiki markup. Good day. FunksBrother ( talk) 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
As a courtesy to all other editors and readers, it would be great if you could ensure that anything you add to an article is cited to the same quality and style as the rest of the citations in that article. As it happens, Starfish is a Featured Article and it uses citation templates, so in a case like that you ought as a matter of principle to use the same kind of citation template as is in use. By the same token, you should not be adding uncited materials to any article. Many thanks for your co-operation and understanding. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi. Please see: Talk:Ryan Costello (baseball) ... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Costello (baseball). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Man-eating species has been nominated for deletion
Category:Man-eating species has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Regarding this edit, I have reverted it for several reasons, in decreasing order of impact:
- Most importantly, you apparently didn't read the news article, because there's a direct quote from MDOT saying that the interchange configuration is not going to change. We don't generally include regular maintenance projects in history sections. (Now, if they were converting the interchange layout to a stack, for example, that would warrant inclusion.)
- Your text contains an opinion ("obsolete") that isn't supported by the source. We should never use include an opinion on a topic without it being supported by a source, and in many cases, we should say where that opinion came from.
- You added a bare URL as a source. This is problematic in general because it makes it harder for readers to assess the quality and relevancy of a citation without clicking the link. At a minimum, if you're adding a citation to an article, you should provide author, date, title, and publication or publisher. More information is better than less, but those are the minimums. Preferably, you should attempt to use a citation template if the article employs those as it will consistently display the citation details.
- Your text contains quite the embarrassing typo, saying that work would conclude 19 years before it started.
- You added text to a Featured Article that doesn't match up; namely you spelled out "Interstate 69" and "Interstate 94" even though no Interstate designation is spelled out after the very first section of the article.
Please keep these concepts in mind in the future. I will note that you received feedback in 2019 about using citation templates in articles the employ them. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as
Talk:Intelligence quotient for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the
talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.
Sundayclose (
talk) 19:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the article
Cat. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at
Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)