User talk:Donn300
|
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Richard J. Hayes (code breaker & librarian), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/h/Hayes_RJ/life.htm.
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) 10:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of John T. Lewis (maths physicist, telecom pioneer[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on John T. Lewis (maths physicist, telecom pioneer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — 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 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 that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GILO A&E⇑ 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Status and Advice[edit]
As reviewing administrator, I had to delete it as a copyvio. I agree with you that Wikipedia should certainly have an article on him, but you must write it from scratch. The source yiou used will be a good reference for it. However, a encyclopedia article is different from a obit in a professional magazine: Use his plain name, John L Lewis as the title of the article, (except please use his full middle name, as we have an article on a US general named John Taylor Lewis; refer to him by his last name within the article, not his first name, and discuss his professional career, not his personal characteristics. List his major publications. And if any of his students are notable, link to their articles if they have them--or consider writing them also. And don't praise him--let his work speak for itself. Look for other sources also. But you cannot use your own personal knowledge as a source--WP relies only on published sources.
Welcome to Wikipedia & check out the Teahouse![edit]
|
The article J.O.(Seán) Scanlan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 24[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tomás Ó Canainn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Control (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) 08:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John J. O'Meara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Institute of Advanced Study. 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) 09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3RR warning[edit]
Your recent editing history at Kevin Myers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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.
Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V - if you have proof of Myers' British citizenship, that would qualify for WP:V but in its absence, Myers' self-identification as Irish stands and is the consensus. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
April 2018[edit]
Hello, I'm Linguist111. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Peter Madsen, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! LinguistunEinsuno 20:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Linguist111: Shouldn't the onus instead be to prove that Peter Madsen is a QUALIFIED engineer? I have read a lot about him, and he never qualified as an engineer (if fact most believe that he is not an engineer, he is a non-professional person ('professional' meaning one working to (approved/recognised) professional standards) working with things mechanical/technical). He really is an amateur engineering-enthusiast, or perhaps at best an 'amateur engineer'. All of these more helpful more accurate descriptions were reverted/blocked, and so I put in the incontrovertible 'unqualified engineer' (which I think gives him way too much credit).
@Linguist111: Can someone provide the citation to a reliable source that he is a QUALIFIED engineer? No, because he never qualified. There is something about 'proving a negative' which you will have heard of, and while it's not exactly the same here, it is incumbent on the people denying the word 'unqualified' to come up with the proof / citation that he is actually qualified!
--Donn300 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)== The Emergency ==
I am happy with the article about Michael Gambon just referring to World War II. However I am pretty certain you are wrong in your comment. People in the republic did then and for some time afterwards much more commonly refer to the period as the Emergency rather than the war. The war was something Britain and Germany were engaged in. Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
That is not true, besides contemporary historical sources etc., I was very close to my grandmother, born 1900 (and many of her generation and afterwards) and they all referred to it as the war, they knew what was going on in the world! It is true that later comedy & commentary milked that phrase because of the name of the Act (& why wouldn't they). At time of writing there is a pandemic (plague?), legislation gives powers to authorities to shut businesses etc., but in the future people will probably still call it a pandemic, and not call it after the legislation, because there is no political axe to grind about this. But the reaction was different in the case of WWII because of interpretations of Irish neutrality. Just like the pandemic now, the people knew what was going on in the world then, and they called it the war.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Donn300. 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Donn300. 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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| 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 |
Minor edit?[edit]
Hi! You flagged a recent edit to the Nyquist–Shannon Sampling Theorem article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem) as minor, but the edit doesn't meet the "Minor" edit criteria (more info here: WP:MINOR). Personally, I avoid using the Minor flag unless I'm absolutely sure the label fits (correcting a typo, undoing obvious vandalism, etc.).
Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
Please discuss at Talk:William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin#Nationality again. I suspect a book review from 2002 may not be sufficient to overturn scholarly consensus. GPinkerton (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Length contraction; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| 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 |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)