This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
hey, how do you do that to your name? I've also seen others with colourful or artistic name designs but I have no idea how it's done. Thanks man Nate Hooper ( talk) 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cambial Yellowing! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi, you’ve made some very helpful changes to the lead, but your insistence on including a tiny label that is rarely (if ever) mentioned in overviews of James's career (and not even naming it, implicitly admitting that it’s not significant enough to mention!) is inane. He recorded for several other labels during that time too, and you’ve not bothered to mention those—rightly, because it’d be silly. Include those details in the article body. gentlecollapse6 ( talk) 00:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aphex Twin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital ( 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) 07:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Your fight for unbiased distribution of references is most valuable for en.wikipedia.org FrankBierFarmer ( talk) 14:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Les Bonbons (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compilation.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to pursue the Charity v Think-tank argument but are you sure that they really describe themselves as a think-tank? I haven't looked but it is a very tabloidish phrase so best you check as you wrote it. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised by this edit, which restores the rather unsightly [[John F. Kennedy] construction. I take it the actual source contains a reference to Kennedy which doesn't use his name? Eelworm ( talk) 19:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Indicator Red 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.
Lennart97 ( talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senedd.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Lol isento ( talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Please see United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 ChefBear01 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC) ChefBear01 ( talk) 08:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit. Two things: I was restoring an old sentence, and, as you can see, my name is Denis and my Irish passport has my name as Denis (English) and Donnchadh (Irish). Regards Denisarona ( talk) 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't particularly care whether this release is classified as by AFX or Aphex Twin as they're all the same dude in the end, but we should be consistent across all articles. The article refers to it as by AFX, not Aphex Twin, and as I said in my revert summary, James's own website prefaces it as by his AFX moniker here. The only sources I'm seeing stating the contrary from a quick Google search are Discogs (and they're not reliable per WP:USERG) and uploads of its tracks on websites. Ss 112 20:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
It’s unusual that this article does not appear in the English-language version of Deutsche Welle, which I have checked. Could you confirm/clarify please: by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 do you mean starting at "Britisches Gericht lehnt Freilassung von Assange ab" and ending immediately before "Wikileaks-Gründer in Isolationshaft" ? CWO ( talk) 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I have now completed this. To make it easier for myself, I copied and pasted the Deutsche Welle article into Google Translate then copied and pasted the result in English into a Word file. Then I checked the translation against the original German text, correcting it where necessary: e.g. the Google text made it appear that while Merkel was visiting Washington, so was Biden; "konstuiert und haltlos" appears twice but was given two different translations. I've also inserted a couple of clarifications of my own in square brackets mostly to do deal the fact that the article was dated 2 July 2021 and the tense the verb has to be in accordingly, and one explaining the German abbeviation ROG.
What should I do now? How do I pass the translation on to you? It's so long since I last did this, I've forgotten how. CWO ( talk) 13:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I have signed up to Pastebin and posted the text a few minutes ago, with an expiry of one day. However, I have no idea how this works or how one knows where to access other people's posts. My username is "CWOwen1952". CWO ( talk) 15:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cambial Yellowing - the IP editor who started this thread did not notify you. Levivich 17:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I might get over aggressive in whacking a vandal. I am sorry for removing your edits in addition to the vandalism. Cheers with a bubble tea. Whpq ( talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
I was wondering what on earth you were up to with the archive pages but I understand now the archiing must have bombed out halfway along doing an archive and left an empty one. Thanks for the work fixing it up rather than leaving a gaping hole that might leave people thinking all sort of weird things. NadVolum ( talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey man. I'm sorry for wigging out on you. Regardless of the content, I feel bad. Hope all is well. And thank you for making the improvement to the article possible. It would have been lesser without, for better or for worse. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Cambial Yellowing,
You recently posted on my talk page that I am canvassing,then proceeded to delete it.
Canvassing is posting large amount of comments on users page asking them to support your opinion to influence an outcome.
I simply asked one individual for their interpretation or understanding of what an opinion piece is. The posting was limited and the message had a reasonable amount of neutrality to it.The user I asked has disagreed with me before on multiple occasions and wouldn't be considered particularly partisan. This entirely follows the rules of notifying other editors. Basedosaurus ( talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm about to break 3RR (if I haven't already) at Pound sterling, with an IP editor who seems largely to know what they are doing but seems to be a traditionalist and very insistent. For the long version, see talk:Pound sterling#STG abbreviation. It may be that it is I who am in the wrong. Administrator oversight would be timely if you would, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are you redirecting articles like this one? If you think the Scientology topics shouldn't be stand-alone articles, then you need to get a consensus before removing all of this content. APK whisper in my ear 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Why would you remove a template link to a FA? APK whisper in my ear 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
template excuse” is, but articles which would largely cease to exist were the primary-sourced material removed should be redirected to an article that covers the subject and that does meet GNG. Your ramblings about fascism (?) are not relevant and there was and is no reason to respond to them. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The other thing I would tell you about LISTN, though, Cambial, is that it only mentions that the "group" or "set" itself must be notable, not that a "List of X" is notable. And I think you would be hard pressed to argue that "scientologists" as a group are not notable. There are certainly plenty of sources demonstrating the notability of Scientology and its adherents. I'm bringing that part of the discussion here because you're right, ANI is not the proper place for it. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 11:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not edit the header I used to describe my talkpage topic, especially not to replace it with a misleading one that does not cover the topic I actually raised. CMD ( talk) 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
In what sense was it an unexpected derailment
? It was content
you removed, claiming it was original research, and then opened a talk section, explicitly claiming in your comment that all the material you removed was original research. It was not perfect e.g. some of the citation placement was not exact (Siver citation a sentence late, but the topic it discussed was v. obvious) and not quite exactly rendered (a Newsinger page number was out - p. 52 instead of the correct p. 50). You said it was OR. Much of it was nothing of the sort, and several of the citations used are the same ones in the article now. Inviting talk page discussion on the basis of all the material being OR, when much was not, is not a neutral opening heading.
Cambial —
foliar❧ 05:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
fake sourcing” other than that which occurred in your imagination, presumably a product of the zeal and unfortunate accompanying carelessness with which you pursued the removal of other sources which were misused. As to
whatever is going on here, you opened a discussion on my talk page; if you were hoping I would not respond, that was a suboptimal course of action. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
On Talk:Robert Fisk, your lack of a timestamp on your last comment in the section about Katerji has made my plugins (and the default edit engine) very confused about which one of us made that comment. Please fix it, thank you! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Cambial Yellowing:, I have restored the article back to a redirect after page review. More than 90% of the article is unsourced; that is unacceptable in an article in mainspace. I've no choice but to redirect it. I've asked for page protection. scope_creep Talk 14:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?. 45.136.197.235 ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You're right of course. However: A piece of advice I was given on another AN/I thread... Walls of text discourage administrator action. Which is quite possibly why he does it. In any event, I do not claim to know the answer to the questions about refactoring, but I think you have established a pattern of behavior. At this point it may be best to refrain from answering every post, although that last one did cry out for it and I was considering doing so myself.
Elinruby (
talk) 15:11, 5 November 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
If 2022 annexations are not included we must do the same for Crimea. Panam2014 ( talk) 23:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Scottish independence into
Potential breakup of the United Kingdom. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 03:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Do not ever remove another users comments without good reason. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
After doing hours of painstaking independent research into the release date of Garlands by Cocteau Twins (convinced that the date in my own database was wrong), I found the sources you'd already added to this Wikipedia article. I'm sure you're already aware of how infrequently release dates (particularly for albums whose releases predate the Internet) lack citations. To see those already in place was very pleasing. Cheers! alainsane ( talk) 07:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. 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:
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.
-- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Mellk ( talk) 04:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit at Twelve Tribes Communities, keep in mind that newspaper articles from many newspapers pre 21st century are not usually readily available through google or other simple searches. All three citations you removed were Boston Globe articles and were verifiable by a search of the newspaper. If you don't have access to the tools to verify a newspaper article, then don't just remove it simply because you can't google it. Tag them as needing verification. ButlerBlog ( talk) 19:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your interest in and edits to the Twelve Tribes article. I’ve noticed a particular user there seems to be quite protective of that article. Do you think something is afoot?
Thanks 160.20.230.23 ( talk) 16:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
It's rather overstepping to consider this man not a RS in New Religious Movements, https://yorksj.academia.edu/GeorgeChryssides and his publications here. https://www.academia.edu/44807757/Chryssides_list_of_publications. Littleolive oil ( talk) 03:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aphex Twin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, one of the guys from Turning Point UK messaged me (told him I am editing their stuff, didn't edit on their behalf) and says he actually preferred your intro as he would rather TPUK be 'linked to according to experts' than 'described variously as' far right. Given that, happy for you to revert my edits to the intro (not the ones to the body of the text!) It's a bit of a choice but for some reason they think 'linked to GI according to an expert' makes them look better than what I wrote! PompeyTheGreat ( talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to Danny Masterson has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:29, 13 October 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you know if the English wiki accepts fair use?, I would greatly appreciate the help. I have a problem with images from copyright free sites that have use restrictions or for other reasons do not come Creative Commons ChefBear01 ( talk) ChefBear01 ( talk) 11:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I need help with fixing the previous redirects to the current article name Food and drink industry in England, please could you advise me as to anyone who could help it would be greatly appreciated. ChefBear01 ( talk) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 23:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)I think that there are two evasive sockpuppet accounts making edits on the Economy of England article User:Adamjen2 and User:Englandsupport4 possibly by the same main account and I need assistance. ChefBear01 ( talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Cambial Yellowing, as described at the bottom of the recent edit-warring noticeboard discussion, I have removed some examples of unproductive remarks by all mentioned editors in Special:Diff/1194995281. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you about the IP edits. Be careful not to repeatedly revert, though, as you run the risk of being blocked under WP:3RR. ~~ MichaelMaggs ( talk) 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Why did you remove IDM from the infobox for Windowlicker? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:10C9:E047:FA37:305C ( talk) 01:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This made me smile on a grim day BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thank you for your report at WP:ANEW, and sorry for the delay.
The report has now been closed with the following message:
- Softlemonades, the exception is about "clear copyright violations", similar to the other exceptions that are for really clear cases. In a situation where the copyright issue itself is under dispute, the situation isn't clear enough for the exception to apply. You have been edit warring, and you'll need to find a consensus about this issue instead. Neither you nor Cambial Yellowing should be the person to assess or implement that consensus. I'm closing this as "warned/stale" as there have been no edits for two days, but if this continues, there will be page protections or blocks, and they won't be removed or avoided by 3RRNO#5. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Warned ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stale ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 14:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)