User talk:User6985
Football Fixtures[edit]
Dudesleeper has been deleting Football Fixtures lists, claiming these lists are copyrighted. The Guardian claims [1] this is not the case, and this information was provided on the talk page of the article in question before his edits. The article in question: Newcastle United F.C. season 2009–10. Dudesleeper has also been marking his major reversions as minor and calling people names in his edit summaries. Needless to say, these approaches are very frustrating. At first I responded in kind, but immediately afterwards I realized my mistake. I apologized on his talk page for letting things get out of hand, and recommended we discuss the situation openly to find out which position is correct. Hopefully he'll take me up on it. I know it's tempting for both of us to just be assholes on the Internet. I think we can do better. --Thomas B♘talk 05:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
{{help}}
People are still removing valuable information on upcoming fixtures from Newcastle_United_F.C._season_2009–10, claiming these are subject to copyright, but all evidence in the discussion page suggests they are not copyrightable. People just come along and remove this info, insisting the contrary position is wrong without argument or evidence. Restoring the info is tedious after other changes have been made to the site. I'm not sure how to change this trend, and my talk page discussion contributions have become less politic due to my frustration. I would appreciate someone else reviewing the situation and voicing their opinion as a neutral third party in the talk page. Also, please let me know what next steps I should consider to alter this trend. --Thomas B♘talk 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. If you have attempted to contact the person in question and you still can't resolve the dispute (which I see you have), then you should try some of the steps in the dispute resolution process. There are many options ranging from getting a third opinion, the content noticeboard, and, if things get really bad, the 3RR noticeboard and beyond. Hopefully it doesn't get that far, but these links should help you get started into resolving this process. Thanks for not starting an edit war on this content, and good luck with finding a resolution. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Mr. Jalopy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Mr. Jalopy – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Mister Jalopy[edit]
A tag has been placed on Mister Jalopy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Mister Jalopy for deletion[edit]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Mister Jalopy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Jalopy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Mister Jalopy for deletion[edit]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Mister Jalopy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Jalopy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Kansas Radio Markets[edit]
Template:Kansas Radio Markets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 20 October 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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, User6985. 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)
Your username[edit]
I noticed that, while your username is "User6985", you have your signature as "Thomas B". You can actually request to change your username if you so desire. Since the username "Thomas B" is already taken, you can request a username change here by following the instructions on that page. — Gestrid (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a problem. It is not easy to recognize the username from this signature, in contravention of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- From that link, "A 2021 RfC was closed with consensus against signatures being required to correspond exactly to usernames and no consensus to require that signatures be easily recognizable to a new user as referring to the username they link to." Thank you for the link, that was helpful confirmation that my current signature does NOT/NOT contravene current policies. Even so, I welcome you bringing this to my attention, because I don't want to create any appearance of impropriety. So please note that I have consistently included a link to my talk page to ensure users like yourself can easily find me after discussions on other pages, as you have done here. I have taken note that there are other proposals under discussion on this issue, such as from enterprisey. I will watch those closely, and once there is consensus and policy clarity, I will make sure I stay aligned with any guidance receiving full consensus. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, I will watch it closely. --Thomas B (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to correspond "exactly" but as it is it's misleading. I was confused, and people who need to use assistive technologies will be even more confused. Your choice I guess. Bon courage (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- From that link, "A 2021 RfC was closed with consensus against signatures being required to correspond exactly to usernames and no consensus to require that signatures be easily recognizable to a new user as referring to the username they link to." Thank you for the link, that was helpful confirmation that my current signature does NOT/NOT contravene current policies. Even so, I welcome you bringing this to my attention, because I don't want to create any appearance of impropriety. So please note that I have consistently included a link to my talk page to ensure users like yourself can easily find me after discussions on other pages, as you have done here. I have taken note that there are other proposals under discussion on this issue, such as from enterprisey. I will watch those closely, and once there is consensus and policy clarity, I will make sure I stay aligned with any guidance receiving full consensus. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, I will watch it closely. --Thomas B (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, User6985. 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, User6985. 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)
Nomination of Harvey Frank Robbins for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvey Frank Robbins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Frank Robbins until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2023[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Was reverted multiple times while urging in reverts and on talk page to move discussion to talk page for resolution per WP guidelines. Would absolutely welcome independent review. --Thomas B (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Third opinion on [[Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Intro relevance]
I intend to offer a third opinion on the above-topic per the request for one, but it wold be helpful if you could please crystalize your main points on the talk page here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)