Welcome!

Hello, Spot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 
Yours, Smeelgova 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Fractal compression has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco⁵ 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Fractal compression constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

calling that edit vandalism is absurd. i removed a totally irrelevant claim from the article. if you think it should be included, please justify yourself on the discussion page. the page was marked by Ronz with all kinds of problems i'm trying to fix them. Spot (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact was sourced and true. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't true i said it was totally irrelevant. They got a grant 15 years ago to develop this tuff.... what was the result of that? nothing. Please compare this article to Jpeg for the kind of information that should go here.

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:WBOSITG. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i edited his talk page to discuss the above matter with him, in the proper section (apparently i'm not the only person with this problem). it's a good faith edit. i am happy to discuss it here but i don't see what's wrong with what i wrote there, please show if there was.

I would recommend you list the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It's a bit more of an involved process, but if you nominate the article for deletion on the basis of what you said on my talk page, the article will probably be deleted with community consensus, or fixed up and referenced to the proper standard if that is possible. --Canley (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your comments "The company btw is a "pink sheet" penny stock with a history of fraud." and "It should be removed forthwith, and the editor banned" are helpful. Would you consider removing them? --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and removing the two sentences indicated above. Revert if you like. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you remove them, but fyi my accusation of fraud is based on [1] (ditto here: [2]). Finally consider the stock activity: [3] that corresponds to the beginning of Editor5435/Technodo's editing of the page. Spot (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the ANI. Following up on the conflict of interest concerns: I don't have time right away to go over your edits for you. I definitely recommend you read WP:COI before you decide how you want to proceed. In general, the safest way is to contribute mainly to the talk pages of the articles where you have a coi, asking others to review and make edits for you. Minor edits to articles should be fine. It's all explained fairly well. If you want to be more aggressive on getting this settled quickly, you could start a discussion in WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Scott Draves, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Draves and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fractal compression. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kevin Baas^talk 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. If someone reverts your an edit of yours, be sure that you've explained yourself on the talk page before considering reverting the other's revert. If you do decide to revert, it's best to do it only once, then just discuss the problem on the talk page until some consensus is reached. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spot. You've been mentioned at WP:AN/3RR in a new complaint by User:Jakespalding. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note. the result was no violation. Spot (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that:

Wikipedia:Layout

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

??????????????????????

~ WikiDon (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Best of all: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph

PPS: Although it doesn't say it in MOS, I compromised and cut four back to two just for you.

Actually the MOS explicitly prohibits "Two links are next to each other in the text". There were 4 in a row in the article. There are still 2 in a row, which still violates the MOS. Furthermore, these links are for common words, which is also bad practice. I'm going to fix it now. Spot (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 37% Rule requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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), 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 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 admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Macromonkey (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined to speedily delete the article, because the context seems clear to me. But there are other reasons people may want to either delete or merge this article; I suggest asking for input over at the math wikiproject. P.S. Go NCSSM! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with what? I couldn't find this result elsewhere in wp... Spot (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a straightforward application of probability; the math guys will know where it fits in. We've got lots of mathematicians who enjoy fitting new contributions into the mix. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True but it has a life of its own, outside of probability. See the book "The mating mind" By Geoffrey F. Miller.

I added another more scholarly reference as well. Sorry the formatting is crap -- really short on time, but i think this content is good. Spot (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict: it was replaced with a redirect to the Secretary problem and the references were moved over. Spot (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you choose to delete the sample images that you did from the Apophysis software page. At least one of those pictures demonstrated a unique aspect and major evolution of the program, that is no longer even represented. Personally I find wiki pages containing pictures that detail the various aspects of a subject far more informative. Anyway, I just wanted to know if there was some reason you felt these pictures should not be there. Perhaps we should make a more informative section on the history and evolution of this software.69.171.172.217 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of gestures. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on PS 172 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:29, 24 April 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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:De-figure.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 00:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]