Thanks for uploading Image:200px-Zürich 4 und Zürich 6.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Marcel_Pilet-Golaz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Mutinus caninus. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This is not vandalism, but merely the correction of a wrong translation. Learn to read Latin and/or refer to my explanation on the bot page. -- Cú Faoil ( talk) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Mutinus caninus. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you ever read a page before you post? User:ClueBot/FalsePositives#C.C3.BA_Faoil. -- Cú Faoil ( talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Do I read your talk page before reverting your edits? Uh, no. Why would I do that? However, I read your post to my talk page, finally figured out what you were talking about with the Bot reference, and I have stopped reverting your edits. Mind your tone. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Because it is basic courtesy to actually read a talk page thread before making a contribution on it? There is no need to mind my tone; however, there is quite a dire one for you to work more diligently. -- Cú Faoil ( talk) 00:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You are incorrect, sir. Rollbackers revert apparent vandalism by pressing a button, not making a careful review of the user's talk page. I'm sorry, that's the way it is, and impugning my need to work more "diligently" is out of line. Come back when you've made over 2,000 vandalism reversions in the past month and we can talk about diligence. That said, again, I agree with you. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

To make my above comment more constructive, I'll say this: nobody's going to review your talk page before reverting an introduction of the word "penis" into an article. However, if you post something to -their- talk page (giving them an alert that they have a message), the message will get through. That's the proper way to handle it. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have quite a bit more wiki work than that (none of which automated, thankyouverymuch), it just happens to primarily be on another language version. And since you seem to agree that correcting the translation is not vandalism, I will now repeat the revert. -- Cú Faoil ( talk) 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Then surely you know that rollbackers don't read or see someone's talk page before reverting and automatically add a warning. I literally have no way of knowing that you posted something to your talk. This is the only way to keep up with the frantic pace of vandalism, and is basically standard operating procedure. You will note I stopped reverting immediately once you posted on -my- talk page. There is no need to cry "basic common courtesy" at me, or tell me there is a "dire" need for me to "work more diligently." I appreciate that you are apparently a positive contributor to Wikipedia. My only issue here is with your comments. Good day. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I disapprove of automatic rollbackers, primarily because the concept violates the presumption of innocence (or AGF, as wiki calls it). That said, my choice of words may have been too harsh, though fueled by frustration about being reverted (again below) without my arguments being considered. The note the bot left on my talk [1] stated If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. I do just that, and get another automatic revert. Woohoo.

That said, I doubt further discussion will be productive. If I offended your personal feelings, consider this an apology. -- Cú Faoil ( talk) 01:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Completely understand, and actually agree with your thoughts on automatic rollbackers. I think of it as a necessary evil, but a bit of an evil, nonetheless. What happened here is a perfect example of the downside of it -- you came very close to getting reported to WP:AIV for making a perfectly valid (or at least obviously non-vandalism) edit! Hopefully, the admin reviewing the report would have noticed and not blocked you, but there's so much damn vandalism on here (particularly today -- sheesh) that you never know. Anyway, thanks for apologizing and for being the first in this little dispute of ours to pull back and be reasonable. I definitely overreacted to your words, so consider this a return apology, hehe. Have a good one! :) Ginsengbomb ( talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Mutinus caninus. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This is not vandalism, refer to User:ClueBot/FalsePositives#C.C3.BA_Faoil -- Cú Faoil ( talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with you, it doesn't to me appear to be vandalism. Ginsengbomb ( talk) 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shepherd dog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Working Group ( 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) 19:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catmando. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC) reply

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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm GA-RT-22. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 12:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply