Hello, Arms Jones, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arms Jones! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia article will fill a different need. Your idea is clearly misguided, if I may say so. This word is used in political science and may very well have its place here. Arms Jones (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an encyclopedia, so a two sentence definition of the term Landslide victory with no expansion is pointless; that's why we have dictionaries. The Wiktionary definition of landslide (see wikt:landslide) already lists the political victory sense of the word. Now, if you had written an article as a list of notable landslide victories, that might be something, but the article you've written seems to serve no purpose whatsoever. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I am forbidden to start an article very shortly and continue working on it some hour later? It has to be a full essay from the start? I didn't know that was the Wikipedia way. Arms Jones (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Coat of arms of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. EricCorbett 13:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Coat of arms of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham[edit]
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Hello, Arms Jones. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry if your first experiences here were a bit rough. Just wanted to let you know that your contributions are appreciated. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links from London borough infoboxes to coats of arms articles[edit]
I've added the ability to do this and made it work on the Barking & Dagenham and Bexley articles. You can easily do this for futher articles by filling in one field as I did here. MRSC (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 2[edit]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology![edit]
Welcome, Arms Jones!
Thank you for your interest in the Heraldry and Vexillology project. We have many open tasks you may be able to help with, including assessingunassessed articles, improving heraldry stubs, identifying relevant articles and tagging them with {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} at the top of their talk pages, and participating in project-relevant move discussions and deletion discussions. Use the project talk page to communicate with other project members, and if you find any relevant move discussions or deletion discussions, please post a link on the project talk page to alert other members. Please refer to the WP:BLAZON guide for dealing with blazons in Wikipedia articles. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to leave me a message, I'm here to help! Wilhelm Meis(☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have fixed the link from the coat of arms of the London County Council, but for the others I don't know how to disambiguate. For Ethelbert, I am not sure whom by that name it should link to and for bourne there is no more exact article than the disambiguating page. Arms Jones (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be rewriting the Blazon section of your articles? That section is difficult to read or understand. Thanks! JodyBtalk 17:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The blazon is adopted officially and written with heraldic terminology. The blazon is quoted from the grant of arms and cannot be rewritten, it would be like rewriting a maths formula just to explain it. You have to have the explanation next to it instead. What the blazon says is described in the rest of the article and in the image. If you have any specific question about some blazon, maybe you can post that question on the talkpage and I will try to answer it. Arms Jones (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People's crown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have made this change now, linking to crown (heraldry) instead. Arms Jones (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Arms Jones. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page. Message added "05:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)". You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey[edit]
Hi Arms_Jones, regarding your recent revert. Kindly follow the link on Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey to the merge discussion. That is where you will find my rationale for the merge discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You should have added an explanation in the edit summary, I think. Arms Jones (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, however, I am not the one who have provided this text to Wikipedia. I just moved it from one article to another. Arms Jones (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Terbinium. Since you had some involvement with the Terbinium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DonIago (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, if Terbinium is deleted would you have any objection to that bit being removed from the Total Recall plot summary? It doesn't seem helpful to understanding the plot, and since your rationale was that there was a redirect... Anyway, with both of us favoring the deletion I suspect it will happen unless there's a pocket of supporters I'm unaware of. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's only there for the redirect. Thanks for your message here, I reposted it on the talk pages of others who have been more involved with that redirect page than I have. Arms Jones (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Apparently a few editors are in favor of keeping the redirect, so I guess we'll see how things pan out. DonIago (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dexter and sinister (astrology) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.astronor.com/sinister.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. freshacconci talk to me 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci, I think you should notify the person who contributed this from the start. As you can see in the history of the article, I merely moved the text from one article to another. Arms Jones (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, with Twinkle this is all automated and it's easy to get a bit lazy with these sorts of things. I'll let them know. Thanks.freshacconci talk to me 22:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Coat of arms of the London Borough of Camden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/great_london.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem here, RadioFan. What would be the copyright infringement? The text is my own, based on two different sources. The image is posted to Wikipedia before and is used with permission and with fair use rationale. Arms Jones (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rose (heraldic tincture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have made the correction now. Arms Jones (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Heraldic Council) has been reviewed![edit]
Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Reviewed as part of part of page curation, interesting short article on heraldry. Perhaps Russian could be included in article title to enable better search. Kieranian2001 (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.
It's a good idea. However, I don't know the Russian name for it, I only used the information I got from the article on Russian heraldry and the English language page of the President of Russia which is linked from the article. I don't know enough Russian to be able to find the Russian name at that site. Arms Jones (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Gallery of country coats of arms, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. I have gone through the policy and there is nothing there about these images. Arms Jones (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore him. Coats of arms are usually public domain and your use of those images do not fall under the non-free image policy. And Werieth is not permitted to revert image files more than once as he has proven himself to be a nuisance in the past. If he continues to revert your edits, I suggest filing an edit warring complaint. Cheers. freshacconci talk to me 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where it says these files are not permitted. And please be consistent: if you remove these images, remove all the others in that gallery too. Arms Jones (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable. There are rare exceptions to this policy but this isnt one of them. Werieth (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These images are not non-free in the manner meant in the sentence you quote. To use them in this form of gallery is fair use. Read the fair use information on the file page for each image. Arms Jones (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He likes to selectively quote policy to fit his interpretation and then claim that it is the only interpretation. If a coat of arms does not have a fair use rationale, you can simply add one (there's a rationale on the Canadian coat of arms file for use on one page. Simply copy that and make it for the coat of arms page). Of course, the WP:NFCC link Werieth throws at you clearly says that is an acceptable option for non-free images, but he conveniently doesn't mention it. He mainly likes to delete things. That's all he does. Sorry you have to deal with him. freshacconci talk to me 21:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them for failing WP:NFG a rationale isnt going to fix that. Freshacconci, please stop spreading your incompetent understanding of WP:NFCC around. Werieth (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." [Bold mine]. You were saying something about incompetence? freshacconci talk to me 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not failing WP:NFG and the use of them in the gallery is fair use. You can't just claim it is in violation without explaining why. Arms Jones (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policy on non-free material (which fair use is a subsection) is far more strict than fair use law. Usage of non-free media in galleries fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading the policies way to strictly. "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis." You can't just say it shouldn't be there because it happens to be a gallery. The use of national coats of arms in this gallery is fair use, if anything is. Arms Jones (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia fair use is meaningless. Our policy on non-free media WP:NFCC is far far more strict than fair use law. Fair use law allows us to use a copyrighted image on Kim Jong-un, however WP:NFCC#1 forbids usage of non-free files for living people. Please stop trying to argue fair use, wikipedia policies are easily 10 times more strict than fair use law. Werieth (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about coats of arms, not living people. freshacconci talk to me 22:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, seriously I cant make an example that is easily understood? I was making a point about the differences between fair use and wikipedia's policy on non-free media. Since you are obviously unable to understand WP:NFCC can you please stay out of the related discussions? Werieth (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually telling me where I can and cannot engage in a discussion? Am I hearing you correctly? How old are you exactly? I will ignore this flagrant incivility. For now. freshacconci talk to me 23:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean, if you can't explain your reasoning, it's the recipient's fault, not yours? I think I understand WP:NFCC quite well, but I can't understand your interpretation of it. Is that my fault or is it you who just can't explain yourself? Arms Jones (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the target of my last comment was unclear, I was directing them at Freshacconci, who has made a spectacular point of demonstrating that they fail to understand the basic concepts of NFCC. They where not directed at you, my original example was meant as a basic example of just one of many cases where Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far more strict than that of fair use law. I was making an attempt at explaining it when Freshacconci butts in and makes snarky irrelevant and factually incorrect statements which just muddy the waters. If you would like to sit down and discuss the complexities of NFCC I am more than willing to discuss them with you. As for the comment on my talk page, the biggest issue is that if we could get a free replacement for those coats we should already have it. We cannot void an existing copyright which the images are probably still under in order to bypass NFCC. Werieth (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Board of Canada Secretariat| authorlink=Treasury Board Secretariat| title=Federal Identity Program > Top 10 Policy Guidance Issues| publisher=Queen's Printer for Canada| accessdate=4 February 2011}}</
''' The lines on the shield are representative of [[Lake Chad]], and the [[crest (heraldry)|crest]]] in form of a rising sun above the shield represents a new beginning. The goat [[supporter]]
Your recent editing history at Doctor (Doctor Who) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Arms Jones. You have new messages at Barek's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
The report at WP:AN3#User:Arms Jones reported by User:Werieth (Result: Warned) has been closing with a warning to you, since you did violate the WP:3RR rule but had not received the usual 3RR notice before your last revert. The comments you made in the discussion do suggest you may not fully understand our edit warring policy. Please don't exceed 3RR again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pliny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I took care of it now. Arms Jones (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gallery of country coats of arms, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Somba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have taken care of this now. Arms Jones (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Gallery of country coats of arms, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest. Do argue for your point of view instead. Arms Jones (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read the discussion through. It is perfectly fine to use the file there, as the article is written now. Arms Jones (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed read the discussion. What part of the discussion is it that you don't understand? As explained in User:Spartaz's closure, the image fails WP:NFCC#1, except in Arms of Canada. This means that you shouldn't add the image to other articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read the discussion, if that is your interpretation. Spartaz was not the person who [closed the discussion]. There has been a consensus since January that if the text is developed so that it compares the images to eachother, it is enough rationale to use all the files in the gallery. It is like that now. I have just waited for everyone to say OK to the new form of the page. Arms Jones (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is your final warning, do not re-add the file, the NFCR was closed as removing the file. Werieth (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest, Werieth. Your actions are the main reason the article looks like a mess right now. You're just not interested in developing Wikipedia, you just want to delete images. I hope you are happy. Go **** youself. Arms Jones (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are being resistant to advice from the users you are contending with so let me comment as an uninvolved admin. It would be a terrible shame to get yourself blocked because of this issue. Your last edit above was over the line and a more trigger happy admin might have blocked you for it.
You need to understand that the editing model for wikipedia is that we do not edit in isolation and that where there is disagreement the consensus wins out. In cases where there is a wider project consensus such as copyright and non-free content there are occasions where even a local consensus on an article talkpage has to give way to a wider project consensus - or, in the case of non-free content. a binding declaration by the foundation that our standard is far more restrictive then that permitted by US law. So what does this mean for you? In the first instance it means you cannot use the canada image on that page. Secondly, it means that if you keep edit warring to keep it in you will find yourself being blocked (you should also be aware that the 3RR does not apply to your opponents if they are removing violations of the NFCC so edit warring is pointless anyway). Finally, you are going to find yourself getting upset and vexatious with other editors over the issue and, unless you are a psychopath, you can't be enjoying that experience.
There really is no need to spoil your hobby over this so please just accept that the consensus is not with you today and move on to the next thing on your to-do list. I'm happy to discuss/debate anything that you are unclear about or disagree with. SpartazHumbug! 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your new article Roundel (heraldry), a useful article long overdue its own page. For future reference, may I suggest you look at guideline WP:SPLIT for the correct procedure for splitting-off articles.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
London Borough templates: tube and rail stations discussion open[edit]
Hello and a Happy Christmas. Thanks for your recent contributions, improving London's coverage. I would like to invite you to: Category talk:London borough templates.- Adam37Talk 15:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Gallery of country coats of arms, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gallery of country coats of arms 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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Arms_Jones reported by User:Werieth (Result: ). Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
