Hello, AdventurousSquirrel, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Safety Cap (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Bob Alexander (ring announcer), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Showtime (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) 10:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel, you recently marked the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition entry as advertisement. This was not my intention. If you have the time it would be great if you can demonstrate with an example where the problem is and how to change the entry's tone to an acceptable neutral one. Many thanks and happy new year! Samkange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkange (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation AdventurousSquirrel. Samkange —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel, you've flagged the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition entry as using bare URLs for citations and being written like an advertisement. I tried to improve it based on your suggestions. Could you please review and take off the alerts if you feel that article is now satisfying? (If this is not the proper process for removing alerts, sorry for bothering you with this!). Many thanks, Samkange (talk • contribs)

Hello AdventurousSquirrel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kristen Von Vella, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing for the national football team passes A7. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 03:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to write me a note explaining that. Now I won't make the mistake again. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel! You recently undid a small edit I made to the "Secondary Suites" page. I provided a link to a relevant site to the "Further Reading" section. Your note said that it looked like the link might violate the Spam policy. I don't think it does, though I am involved in the site I linked to. This is my first edit to Wikipedia so I am totally open to input.

Here's where I was coming from... "secondary suites" -- also known as accessory dwelling units, granny flats, in-law suites, etc are a growing topic of interest among housing planners and advocates for the elderly. In fact the Wikipedia entries on this subject are pretty anemic and out of date. I planned on contributing more to them. But I thought I'd experiment by just adding a link. This was actually a relevant contribution because other than commercial sites (builders, architects, etc) and government sites (mostly containing local regulations) there until recently had been no single site on the web dedicated to topic. The site I linked to fills that role. It's also nonprofit, has no advertising, etc.

Anyway, I suppose it's true that I could have contributed cited text, as the no-spam policy suggests, but given the weakness of the current page, I thought that small addition was a good way to begin rather than rewriting a whole bunch of the page. Maybe I was wrong? Anyway let me know somehow. Cheers! -martin --Martinjohnbrown (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I find stories that drive our annual fundraising efforts. It's important to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project and we'll set up a good time to discuss further.

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about adding a link/footnote (i.e., a new reference) without making the link appear in the text? MCM0313 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one's WP:BEFORE is perfect, and your withdawal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggermen was both very gracious and most appreciated. If you ever have doubts about film articles, please feel free to ask about them over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. We're always happy to assist. Thanks and best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it seemed like the only reasonable option. Thank you for the message, I will definitely take you up on that if I have questions on film articles in the future. I'm sure it will prevent premature nominations. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was my brother. He is really like that Troll uncle that EVERYONE have. Sorry for my sh... bad english! 187.56.214.68 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in editing on Wikipedia, then the best advice I can give is to create an account. That way you can't get blocked for anything anyone else does. Unfortunately, if your brother does go on and vandalize under the IP again, the IP will be blocked. I think it might be courteous to delete the comment with all of the spoilers that he added on the Spoiler (media) talk page. Normally we don't delete talk page comments, but since it was vandalism I think it would be okay. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the article Mouawad. I agree with your contention that some of the images could be construed as advertising. I re-added the gallery; however, I removed four (4) of the images that could be construed as advertising. To clear up any confusion on the remaining images, I labeled the gallery as "one of a kind pieces" as these are not for sale. These are exclusives that were purchased by Mouawad over the years. While some did not make the Guiness Book of World Records, they are still notable no-doubt. Thank you again for your advice and contributions. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I saw you were a member of the politics wikiproject and I was wondering if anyone can join? I feel like there is probably a lot of controversy on these pages, just as the nature of the subject and what wikipedia is. So I was wondering if anyone can join, or do you need a list of articles edited or something like that. Thanks for your help!!Righteousskills (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good luck!Righteousskills (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't noticed you started a discussion in the talk page of the article! I replied there... regards, Cavarrone (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm from WikiProject Wikify. It is our job to go through all of the articles tagged with {{wikify}} and wikify them. I've noticed you tagged List of MeSH codes (B02) with a wikify tag, unfortunately this article is already wikified or another tag is more appropriate. The reason you tagged it incorrectly is probably due to the fact that it is not clear what the wikification process involves. Hopefully the following will give you some pointers for the future:

What Wikifying does

Wikifying an article involves 4 main things:

• Checking to see if an article duplicates existing information and tagging it with {{merge}} if it does.
• Checking an article for copyright violations and tagged with {{copyvio}} if one is found.
• Adding section headings and formatting the lead.
• Wikilinking the article.

What articles need wikification?

The best way to judge which articles need our attention is to look for the following pointers:

• Is the article divided into sections with appropriate links and section headers?
• Does the article have a lead paragraph with the title in bold?
• Does the article make adequate use of wikilinks to allow for easy navigation of the encyclopedia?

If the answer to any of these is no, add {{wikify}}

If the article is obviously a copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Copyright for details or use copyscape to check the article) then tag it with {{copyvio}} - there is no need to tag it for wikification.

What wikification does not do

We do not:

• Rewrite articles with bad grammar, punctuation or bad English - that is a job for cleanup or copyediting; use {{cleanup}} or {{copyedit}} instead
• Categorise articles - use {{uncat}} instead
• Find sources for articles with none - use {{unsourced}} instead.

I hope these pointers are helpful and thank you for taking the time to tag articles for us. If you want to find out more about wikifying please visit our project page or the talk page. You may even want to join the project. Wikification can be great fun, teaches you loads of different things and gives you loads to edit - we are currently dealing with a backlog of 0 tagged articles so your help would be appreciated!

Wikify was not the correct tag to use here, you should have used the overlinked tag. Not trying to be harsh here, but the wikify backlog gets very large if people misuse the wikify tag. Thanks for your understanding, Athleek123 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm really sorry about putting the wrong tag. I actually had no idea that there was an overlink tag, which is why I thought wikify was the most appropriate (I just gave overlinking as the reason part of the tag). Thank you for the message. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't too big of a deal. {{Wikify}} wasn't misused and was correctly placed; however, Athleek123 was correct that overlink was a bit more appropriate. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. I appreciate the messages because I somehow didn't know about that overlink template. I feel like I should have come across it at some point since I've been here a while. Maybe I should browse through the list of templates to see if there are other good ones I can use. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I just thought I would drop by and say that it might be a bigger deal than you are putting it, Ryan, but anyways thanks for understanding AdventurousSquirrel. Also, you should try using Twinkle so you have all the templates in front of you and just have to check a box next to the ones you want to add. Athleek123 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did/do use twinkle. I just never noticed the overlink one, probably because wikify is at the top of the list and I thought it applied so I didn't scroll down to look for another one. I will use it from now on if it applies. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, awesome! Athleek123 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally deleted one of your posts on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. I tried to follow the instructions for a reported edit conflict, but the system deleted it anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I figured it was due to an edit conflict. I'm getting very frustrated with XB70. He is making wild accusations against me and I hope that a reasonable person who looks at the talk page can see that they are without merit. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family". Thank you.

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! {{{Signature}}}

– Lionel ^(talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you're going to add topics to the deletion sorting lists on a regular basis--which I highly encourage, as I find it a very useful process--would you be so kind as to wikilink either the AfD or the article in your edit summary, so I can jump straight to the affected article from my watchlist? Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the tip! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AdventurousSquirrel, Just in case you may like to comment, I have AfD'ed an article you recently tagged at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Law_of_Love_Ministries. Regards. Jschnur (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jschnur, thanks for the notice. I came across a similarly themed article, Son of God vs. Son of Man. I was thinking of putting it up for AfD but wasn't sure which specific policies to cite. I guess maybe that it only has primary sources (Bible) and could be considered original research. There are significant articles on the separate topics of Son of God and Son of man though so I don't know if it could be expanded more. What are your thoughts on that article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look when I get a chance and get back to you. Might not be for a while though. Cheers. Jschnur (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've AFD'ed this one too as per your suggestion of original research. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Son_of_God_vs._Son_of_Man. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't belong in WP. Regards. Jschnur (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I wonder if you might initiate a SPI of the editors of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Son_of_God_vs._Son_of_Man. I would do it but I am severely time-challenged at the moment. If you do, take note of User:History2007 comments and findings for example at Person of Christ as extra evidence. I understand if you are unable or unwilling. Cheers. Jschnur (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yea I was planning on doing that but like you I was also time challenged. It's been getting tougher to get on here as frequently as I used to. Looks like it was already taken care of though so it's all good. Happy editing. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AdventurousSquirrel. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really cool! Thanks for the info, I'll definitely try it out when I have time. Cheers, AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I work at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are uploading materials to Wikimedia Commons. We have a number of documents that might be of interest to you - they are located at Wikimedia, Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

If you are interested in writing articles/stubs, I may be able to provide you with pictures from our archives as well. We have a limited number of artifacts, to also at Wikimedia, Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

Let me know if I can help in any way, and please feel free to pass the word about these docs; I'd love to see some content generated around them....thanks! Bdcousineau (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you for the information! I'm just coming back from a long break and this archive seems like a good place to start :) AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such great news, please let me know what I can supply you with to move this along.Bdcousineau (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel,

I disagree with your reversion of my edits on the Tea Party movement page. I have very different memories about how the term "teabagger" was used, which seem to conflict with your memories. I wonder if at this point in time we could find documentation from the time of the beginning of the Tea Party movement to show which one of us is correct. I won't revert to my edits at the moment, but I'll file this away and revisit the issue when I have the time to do so. Because I think this should be sorted out, you know, for posterity. ;) --Spiff666 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Below is your note to me)

Hello Spiff666,

I reverted your edits on the Tea Party movement page. I hope your edits were an honest mistake, as there is no evidence that the Tea Partiers referred to themselves as "teabaggers" before the term was applied to them pejoratively by the media. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi AdventurousSquirrel, I saw your proposal but I respectfully disagree. The meme propagated almost 3 years ago and still signifies an important moment in the history of South Africa because it reflected the mood of the country after the murder of right wing president of the AWB. It has more than 4 million hits on Google, including articles from the BBC and others (adding now). And thirdly, there are many other memes from other countries that are represented on Wikipedia - as the most (or at least one of the most) notable memes from South Africa, I think this should be considered notable enough. Best, --Hfordsa (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hfordsa, and thank you for your polite discourse. While I don't doubt that it was a significant moment in the country's history, I think it will have to be demonstrated that the meme, rather than the event itself, requires its own unique article (rather than being included as a section in another related page) and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, by providing information from and links to reliable sources which show that the meme has received significant coverage in those reliable secondary sources. The notability guidelines you'll want to pay particular attention to in this case can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (web). If more of them exist, perhaps you may be able to help find and include non-English sources (I suspect there may be more in Afrikaans?), which are also perfectly acceptable as long as they meet the "reliable source" requirements. I apologize if this is all information you are already familiar with, but in case you might find it helpful, I will also post a table of links on your talk page that may be of value. Thank you again for your note, and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Respectfully, AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AdventurousSquirrel :) I will work on it :) --Hfordsa (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I noticed you cited my page for references and citation style . I'm not very proficient in these matters and could not post links because nothing from those days is on the web . I do have magazines , some video and other documentation . Thanks for your help and input . And sorry if I did this wrong 'cause I have a feeling I did this wrong . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.67.189 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The tag is just there to implore anyone sees it to add the extra reference information...if you have that info readily available though, it would be really helpful if you could add it to the article. If you ever have any doubts about how to properly cite info you add, you can use the citation template in the RefToolbar at the top of the editing window - with the cursor blinking just after the information you want to cite, just click "Cite", then the "Templates" dropdown window, and select the type of source and fill out the fields. You'll find that there are additional fields for page numbers, etc for more complete citation. But feel free to ask if you have any questions, and again, thank you. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I put the statement, exactly how it is written in the source. I did not add any personal comment of my own, unlike the previous user User:MarshallBagramyan who put a comment (because nothing like that is written in the source itself) in front of the statement. I am afraid that the user is not acting neutrally in this matter, because of this. The article has to stay neutral and no personal comments shoud be added. In the future could you make shure that the content conforms to the source, and there are no personal comments slipped though.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.24.75 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help and advice. It's much appreciated and it appears that the tag for deletion has now been removed! :) Nunnsofunky (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Congrats on your first save! But keep in mind that the removal of a speedy deletion tag isn't necessarily the end of the deletion process. Make sure to keep adding content from reliable sources to help demonstrate the notability of the topic. Cheers, and happy editing. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove anything. I simply moved the Canada section to the bottom and renamed it to "US and Canada" due to the recent news of an MLS player coming out and then retiring. Because both countries share the same top-tier league of soccer it would be correct to move it below "Spain". 108.54.62.34 (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, my apologies - I've reverted it now. In the future if you could please make sure to include a brief edit summary, it would be helpful for other editors. Cheers, and happy editing! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of all the tags, merger proposals, and the brouhaha in general. Looks like an article that's making progress. I'll remove the tags and try to find some categories. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not hip to the reasoning behind the merger proposal, but I'd suspect it's because the editor who suggested it thought that perhaps Mary Norris Dickinson wasn't notable enough, or didn't have enough reliable sources covering her biographical information to suggest that the information required a standalone article to be presented effectively. I can say that the edit I made, however, was to revert some additions because the references provided didn't back the information that was added with them. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm kind of new to editing articles, so I forgot to add summary for that change but I added a section to the talk page of that article and I waited for a reaction but since nobody took action or replied I removed that section because it was unrelated to that article, it was the personal opinion of a random person with no logic behind it. I hope it was not only my subjective understanding of that paragraph. --Mindlogger (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Yes, I understand there's a bit of a learning curve with many things here - I still often find myself learning new things here as well. It just helps other editors understand what your intent was if you include a brief edit summary with your edit; in the case that you commented in the talk page about your ideas/intents, as you did, you can also indicate that by saying something like "see talk page". Thanks, and happy editing. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the reference links did you see that I copied directly from the source? Everything I typed was original content. --Azninva5in (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "original". Large sections of your addition seem to be identical to documents like this or this, and you provide no attribution to any such source. The rest of it doesn't provide a reliable source, and/or is highly promotional. I suggest you review the links about Wikipedia's policy on copyright issues that I posted to your talk page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm sorry, I was given a word document with the content and told to add the content in. I was unaware that it was not original content. Thanks for pointing that out, and I'll try to revise it to make it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azninva5in (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I already took down incorrect information before you took incorrect information about Eddie Murphy in a edit made by 198.7.241.85 down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.129.12 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you're confused. I didn't remove any information from Eddie Murphy, I just posted a template warning/explanation on 198.7.241.85's talk page. In any case, thank you for catching and removing that hoax, cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fake controversy has nothing to do with the pageant... if a former miss usa murders someone, that has nothing to do with the pageant... i will remove it... but letting u know.... --Sonisona 04:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but it's most useful to include your explanation in the edit summary so that every user browsing the pages' edit history can understand why the changes were made. This is especially important when removing large sections of content, thanks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nowikify has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel. You've made an undo of my edition with this reason "Interesting claim, but it doesn't come from a reliable source. (TW))"

Sending you following information to consider to bring my editings back. I can send you many links on most popular and reliable Russian and Ukrainian news sites by your request. There are many news sites writes about this issue here. I've insert only one source - the Korrespondent in the article, as it's the biggest news-site in Ukraine. Unfortunately, there is no English sources yet, I think due too this is an international issue.

Hi GControl, and thank you for your note. I personally agree that Korrespondent.net is a reliable source, and I don't anticipate other editors will argue otherwise - thank you for adding that reference. Please make sure that all of the information you add is referenced by a reliable source. English sources are preferred, but reliable sources in Russian/Ukranian are perfectly acceptable as well (see WP:NONENG). If you could, it is of course always valuable to add more references to sources which cover the topic more thoroughly. I'll add a table of useful links on your talk page that should help familiarize you with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and give useful tips on things like finding reliable sources and adding information to articles. Thanks again, happy editing! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm ToastyMallows. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kutti Puli, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ToastyMallows (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice, but I only prod'ed it. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 24.55.210.117 is back vandalizing Elijah Wood. It's always something like "Ashely Antonio" is his new/old will they/won't they girlfriend. She's been asked politely by several people, including you, to stop. You've got an account; can you escalate the warning? Ask her to get a new crush. 24.30.104.156 (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I'll, go ahead and do that now, thanks for the heads up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked already. (S)he seems to be a very dedicated vandal...odd. You should consider getting yourself an account! Thanks again. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was blocked by Materialscientist on 2Apr. Apparently the block was lifted because she came back again on 9Apr. Creepy.24.30.104.156 (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's back at it again. She's been warned politely, less politely, and blocked. She's still at it. What's next? 24.30.104.156 (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry for the delay, been away for a few days. Looks like (s)he's been banned for 2 weeks this time, after which time I think we can pretty safely assume she'll be back to vandalize some more...so if/once that happens, given her record of disruptiveness and lack of any useful contributions, we should be able to recommend a lengthier block next time. But hopefully she'll just give up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The block expired, and she was back at it on May 31. 24.30.104.156 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She got a 3 month block this time after expanding her vandalism to other entertainers' pages, so hopefully that will take care of the problem for a while. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to finding the last good, un-vandalized version! :) There was tons of vandalism that seems to have just piled on for a while. Thanks, —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! Yep, they really did a number on that page. Troublingly, I think a small part of me is actually slightly happy to see that America's youth still has some interest in creative writing, unimpressive as it may be. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adventurous Squirrel,

I removed my name that was added to the page "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality." Apparently, someone thought it would be funny to attack my reputation and image on the internet by making false claims that have evidence to support them.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.34.90 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for the explanation. For future reference, it is helpful if you include a brief edit summary with an explanation of your edit. This is particularly important when deleting content, as it is often difficult to distinguish between legitimate deletions and vandalism. If you can identify the user who is adding the content, a warning can be given, and if the issue persists, there can be corrective actions taken, as Wikipedia has strict policies about the information it presents about living people. Please let me know if you have any questions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may get a notification about me reverting your edit at Audrey Tautou. It's nothing to worry about, I just reverted a sequence of edits to the infobox that removed information, and your revert was restored at the end as part of another revert. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, thank you for the heads up. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel,

Your comment was:

"Your addition to ASME Burt L. Newkirk Award has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here."

I have edited the text to avoid direct borrowing. In addition, the text is a description of a prestigious ASME award (and given with a reference to the source), so it is not copyrighted material. Please compare with Henry Laurence Gantt Medal, ASME Medal, Charles T. Main Award.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchifat (talk • contribs) 02:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for looking through the explanation of Wikipedia's copyright policy and helping me make those changes to your addition. I'm not sure I follow your assertion, however, that the text is not copyrighted material. The article Charles T. Main Award you mention seems to also contain an inappropriate copy-paste from a website - thank you for bringing that to my attention. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AdventurousSuirrel, I am new on wikipedia and I don't really know how to upload correctly a video. Inittialy I managed to convert the video and put the link on the wikipedia page ( on two articles Venus de Milo and Borghese Gladiator) . Meanwhile somebody insert correctely the video with Venus and at the end of the day, the two dissapared from wikipedia. I wrote and receveid this replay ("1. Venus_de_Milo - some one fixed the link for you to

Some vandal removed it - now reverted. 2. You must add it correctly - not like Video http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Borghese_Gladiator_Sculpture.ogv Not allowed - please fix it like No.1 above") Now, I don't know how to revert the action of somebody else and i don't know how to insert correctly the video on the page. I would be very greatful for your help, Aude Rain — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudeRain (talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand what happened - both files [Venus] and [the Gladiator] say that the uploader requested their deletion - did you ask that they be deleted?

It appears that a user removed your video from the article, claiming that it was an attempt to promote your work (diff). This may be due to the fact that, (as I recall) your video contained a watermark indicating its status as a copyrighted work of yours. Perhaps this is why they were deleted from the Wikimedia Commons, which requires the work to be redistributable in many ways (see that policy). Wikipedia's file upload wizard which allows you to upload copyrighted, non-free work might be another option - you may try to read up on that a bit.

But yes, if you add video to an article in the future, you may add it with the following format: [[File:Venus_de_milo.ogv|thumb|350px|right|caption to be displayed under thumbnail here]], where "File" includes the whole name of the file on Wikipedia, "thumb" creates a thumbnail to display the file on the page, "350px" is the size of the displayed image in pixels, and "right" is the orientation on the page. The size and orientation can be changed as required by the layout of the page, e.g. [[File:Venus_de_milo.ogv|thumb|400px|center]] to make the video 400 pixels across in the center of the page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your replay. Indeed I asked for them to be removed after I received an email where it was said that they were removed because of the watermakes and that "Normally watermarks get quickly removed by other editors (by cropping or cloning in Photoshop) - that's fine for pictures, there are less editors for ogv files and it will take a while before someone does them."I wouldn't want the sculpture to be cropped so I asked to be removed.I still would like to upload this two videos, I will try to follow your indications. Thank you again, Aude RainAudeRain 22:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudeRain (talk • contribs)

Ok great, my pleasure. Let me know if I can help you figure anything else out. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Magnus Minniskiöld may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2. Ausgabe (Reprint 1978) ISBN 87 85207 20 9, Nr. 137 der Nachkommen von König Gorm des Alten)</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sabrevois (grape) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AdventurousSquirrel. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adventurous Squirrel for the welcome and cookies! Isumataq 01:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellencavanaugh (talk • contribs)

My pleasure! I hope you'll find the links helpful. Again - welcome, and happy editing! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdventurousSquirrel, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Drusus Claudius Nero I, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Drusus Claudius Nero. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Drusus Claudius Nero I at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr squirrel

Please refer to my talk page. thank you Romanus79AD (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC) You helped me understand wiki a little better . Please guide me in this process Romanus79AD (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE FELIX DEAN: Please assist me at obsidianau@yahoo.com.au I am trying to help this kid , Pls don't hammer me....

whilst i know we are attempting to be an encylopedia please let this comment last for at least 48 hours. I am trying to help this kid (felix dean) random's are offering him meth / ice . I know this isn't in the spirit of wikipedia but it is the only resource I have to help this kid's family.

I have had some of his dealers cut off today and I am working on the third. He is a nice kid. Please don't delete my comment as it is the only place i can refer his family and friends to. I understand my ramble is not wikipedia stuff but I am trying to help this kid. Please see this in the context I am attempting to persue. I mean no ill will. This kid is my neighbour and his family now see this site. I know you editor folk will delete this eventually. COuld you please let it stand for 48 hours. HE is a good kid and I am trying to help him and be his friend.

Thank you very much

Hi Romanus, but I'm afraid there are a number of good reasons why the edit can't stand. As mentioned, the talk page can't be a message board used to communicate with others, and I think that there are a whole slew of other issues that are related to the fact that it carries with it some pretty serious allegations, which Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people has set some very strict rules on. Sorry that you won't be able to do that, and thanks for understanding. But if the family are your neighbors and you're trying to communicate with them, can I suggest that there may be easier and more direct ways to contact them than this Wikipedia page? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel. His player profile from the FIFA website isn't confirming his one game for the Cameroon national football team. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you, I wondered about that. After searching around a bit, I've Prod'ed the article as it seems to fail WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG - does that sound reasonable? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me too. An AfD would have probably had the same result - he hasn't yet played a game for Les Lions indomptables and his domestic soccer team hasn't been in the Cameroon Premiere Division for five years or so. From what I can see, he was selected for a match against Tanzania, but it was called off. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK perfect - glad you reached a similar conclusion, and thank you for digging all that up. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I had added a new section to the Talk page about why the images need to be taken down and forgot to fill out the comments section when I made the change. This breed is subject to many people cross breeding dogs and using the OEB breed name fraudulently. It is important to the parent club that the information available to the public remain accurate, considering the vast amount of misinformation already out there.Ss 051 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I apologize for having missed your talk page comment initially - I understand your concern now. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel,

Many thanks for the welcome - much appreciated!

The reason for my proposed edits is that the specific references were factually incorrect (that is public domain and verifiable) and the citations used to justify them were equally incorrect, at least in part i.e. two wrongs don't make a right............. Feel free to let me know if you would like me to expand on that in any way - they were not arbitrary amendments.

Regards,

--JumbyBay (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - glad I could be the first to welcome you!

Regarding the edit I reverted: I couldn't understand why the references were removed without substantial change to the text surrounding them - if the references are not suitable, it is often best to replace them with ones that are, and correct the information in the body, while providing a valid reference for the changes. If an editor is not able to do all of that, there are other actions that can be taken. For example, if a piece of information seems to be incorrect, but you can't find evidence of its incorrectness,that line might be tagged with the {{Dubious}} tag, which indicates to readers and other editors (like this^{[dubious – discuss]}) that the indicated line is disputed, and allows the opportunity for those interested to discuss the problem, particularly on the talk page. It's also useful to indicate what you intended to do with your edit by filling out the edit summary for others to understand and often facilitate your work. I hope this explanation helps. Happy editing. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to make you aware that there is a discussion about updates that you may have made to Red Bull RB10 at Talk:Red Bull RB10. Freimütig (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a couple of your disambigs here. I know we don't like linking to disambigs, but in these cases it's not really that accurate to emphasise "locomotive". Metadynes were fairly common for lightweight stock like tube trains, but (AFAIK, probably not strictly true in the early days) they weren't usable for large locomotives. The Holden example is that electric locomotives (and steam locomotives) were beginning to be replaced by multiple units and it was the extra traction of all these driven wheels that allowed fast acceleration, rather than simple power. When Holden built his steam Decapod he ran into much the same problem - although it was powerful it still lacked the grip in poor weather that the multiple units could achieve, even with all its ten wheels driven. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting - thank you for catching that! So in the first example, would it be more accurate to link to one of the articles that the disambig Electric train links to? i.e., Electric locomotive, Electric multiple unit, or Battery electric multiple unit? Or are you saying it'd be best to not emphasize any one particular type over the other (in which case it may be best for us to explicitly say that in prose)? And if I understand correctly, the Holden example could most unambiguously be stated "Electric multiple unit" rather than "electric train", yes? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "electric train", even as a disambig. If it has to be just one though, EMU is the better one to choose - but probably piped as electric train.

Batteries would be possible too (I expect they used metadynes back then), but they're just extremely rare, so I wouldn't suggest them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

I've removed the bit about Happisburgh prints - no anatomically modern hominids at that time or for hundreds of thousands of years afterwards, those are probably Homo antecessor. I left the rest of your edit. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: Thank you, I think the edits preceding mine on both Eve's footprint and Happisburgh footprints threw me off, despite my better judgement (could apparently use a refresher for my internal early human evolution timeline). I think there's some ambiguity when sources refer to them as the earliest human footprints outside of Africa, due to the differing usage of the term "human". I made a minor clarification on Happisburgh, will see if I can try to alleviate more of the confusion in some other way, because I think it may just keep getting changed/confused in a similar way, as it stands. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be confusing, I agree. Thanks for your help. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

)

...and Cheers! from Oz YSSYguy (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read ukrainian sources. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? If you are not aware how to do it, footnotes are a good way to display the source material used to reference text. Please take a look at WP:FOOTNOTES for a guide. Let me know if you have any further questions. Спасибі! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where are you from? Mayby, Ukrainian?--Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just though you might be. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends, I have write an article. And submitted. But refused due to writing structure(reason:Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Obayda1757#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Sitesh_Ranjan_Deb_.28March_31.29

Now please tell me how can I solve these issues. Or please solve these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obayda1757 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Obayda1757, thanks for the work you've done on it. There are some issues with the writing I can help you address because I think this will be a useful article, but as I noted in my comment, the information it contains needs to be backed by reliable sources, and a number of the links to sources I tried to look at didn't work. I have tagged these links, and if you could go over them again and try to fix them so they link to the sources you used to write the article, it would be helpful. After that, we can address the tone, take a look at WP:TONE and the rest of the guide there if you'd like an example of that, and perhaps take a look at some well-established articles on other people, especially those on similar subjects, e.g. John Muir or another person in Category:Conservationists or similar categories to get a better idea of what our goal should be. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	A barnstar to you for reviewing 75 or more submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing 25 or more user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]

Happy be of service. Cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, As per suggestion I have updated the Article. Rearrange the references. Corrected the links. Now I need someones feedback about its quality. Whether it is ready to submit? Article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sitesh_Ranjan_Deb#Personal_Life

foda-se 189.54.14.118 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you? Experiment in the WP:SANDBOX. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend I need your help. Please tell me where I have to update the tone/language of this article. Or you can change the tone/language by yourself. As I am not very strong in English someone's help is essential for me. A simple help(which consume couple of minutes) will help me to publish this articles.

Jajakallah obayda1757 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obayda1757 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned article was intended to be a translation of the article in the Belarusian Wikipedia. I tried to put that in the reference information, but it would not accept it.Vedac13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The template for that tag can be found at Template:Expand language, or if you'd like to provide a link to the Belorussian article, I could do that for you. So you can see it as an example. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Could you please provide the link - so I can see how it is done. The Belarusian article is Аляксандр АвечкінVedac13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masha Gessen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 08:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me at Masha Gessen? In this edit, you included a reference to her at the Personal Democracy forum. The ref tag is a mess and I can't figure out what the URL or other information is. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, that was a mess. Should be clearer now, thanks for catching that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AdventurousSquirrel, what was your rationale for this page move? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SW3 5DL. First, I should emphasize that the article Ebola virus is distinct from the article Ebolavirus. My understanding is that the two now-merged articles cover the same topic. From the merged/redirected article Ebola virus: "Ebola virus (abbreviated EBOV) was first described in 1976.[1][2][3] Today, the virus is the single member of the species Zaire ebolavirus". Also, from page 18 of this taxonomy revision proposal used as a source in the articles: "Here, we rectify this situation by recommending that the traditional virus name (“Ebola virus”) be used. Retrospectively, the virus nomenclature in most published articles will then be correct. Likewise, press articles, which almost invariably refer to “Ebola virus,” and usually with that term aim at referring to the virus that is currently officially named “Zaire ebolavirus,” will be correct retrospectively and prospectively." That said, it may actually be more appropriate to have merged in the opposite direction, from "Zaire ebolavirus" to "Ebola virus", yes? Or am I missing something else? Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm glad you found that piece. The decision has been taken by ICTV that it should be Ebola virus, so yes, the page should be moved back. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - in that case, I'll go ahead and make the swap. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to do anything here but I have been trying to correct incorrect information on the page relating to a home we just bought- Glasgow in Cambridge Maryland. I have tried to correct the image to a recent image of the house that we took, but the image keep reverting back to an incorrect image. The correct image is:

Also, although the historic registry mentions that it is the birthplace of diplomat William Van Murray, he was the uncle of the resident of Glasgow William Vans Murray Robertson who then legally changed his name to drop Robertson. If I could figure out how to attach my references, I would. Primarily Colonial Families of the Southern States of America: A History and Genealogy ...By Stella Pickett Hardy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhoudl (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Whatever that picture is currently attached- it is not Glasgow. If you google 1500 Hambrooks Blvd.you can see the MLIS pix.Newhoudl (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, yeah I tried to search the National Park Service database, but I'm not totally sure yet how that picture was tagged with that. I have to step out for a moment, but I'll keep looking into it, and I can help you along with this soon if you have any more questions. Do you have any information from a third party source published online that can verify that it's the correct place and information? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the application for the National Registry in PDF-

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Msa_se5_10146-1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhoudl (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reinserted your picture into the article because I think there was likely a mistake on that other picture. Great shot, by the way. As far as references go, probably the easiest way to do it to click where it says "Cite" at the top of your text box where you're typing now, then click the box that says "Templates", and select one of the types, and fill out the little form. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know, or someone at the teahouse will be happy to help, I'm sure. Happy editing. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was trying to do that but there appeared to be a reflist format (?) already in use, and it wast working as expected when I tried to cite something. Newhoudl (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Is it giving some kind of error message? If you copy-paste it here, maybe I can try to help figure out your issue. The {{reflist}} template just creates a place where the references created in the article's text can be displayed in the proper format. For example, if you write: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Doe|first1=John|title=How to Cite|url=http://www.fake.com/notreal|publisher=[[New York Times]]}}</ref>^[1] it will display in the spot that says {{reflist}} as a full citation, as below:

Does that help? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peder Rosenstand-Goiske, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attorney and DBL. 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) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AdventurousSquirrel. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry I suddenly disappeared. I was extremely distressed, but I don't think I should have just left like that. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 12:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies! We all need to "recharge the batteries" from time to time, so to speak. Welcome back, I hope you're feeling well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep up the great work :-)

SanaSazi (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, a kitteh! Tnx! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) @ 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard K. Diran 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/Richard K. Diran until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can see that you've made great contributions to the Richard K. Diran wiki page and wanted to share more information, which would make wikipedia more valuable. The book Bangkok Babylon is used in many citations on Diran's wikipage, yet I don't think anyone has read the book thoroughly. I found a link from Google books which shows part of the interview with Mr. Diran in Bangkok Babylon, and certain things which he had stated that would correlate with the stolen Buddha and smuggled antiquities. Here is the link. https://books.google.com/books?id=eYDQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=romancing+the+stones+diran+bangkok&source=bl&ots=gf3J13jHBq&sig=tAYzbKwDOW6Wx2p6lC075LSB_6A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PKwVYejEYmfsAW4yoCYAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=romancing%20the%20stones%20diran%20bangkok&f=false I have also found a webpage that discusses Mr. Diran's history, which may also be of value to you. http://stopsexslaveryofchildren.org/richard-k-diran.html

Thank you for helping to make wikipedia more accurate and dependableJjjulie6 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Clinton Foundation page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You posted some comments on my talk page and on the Bernie Sanders talk page that I removed the false claim by Diane Rehm without discussing the removal before I did it. That is patently incorrect. I removed your false claim from my talk page. You can review a snippet of discussion that happened before that I removed Rehm's false claim from the Bernie Sanders article here: ML's comment about removing Rehm's false claim. I have reviewed your re-insertion of the material. I believe that work needs to be edited and I will edit it later. I don't have time to do that now. But the place for any discussion about the merits or lack of merits of the false claim by Rehm belongs on the Bernie Sanders talk page and not on my talk page and when a discussion happens it should be based upon factual information, not upon false claims such as I did not discuss the removal before I did it.--ML (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaverickLittle: In that case I suppose I should have tagged your talk page with the "please use the WP:edit summary" template, but I figured the one I posted would be more to the point, since I missed your explanation in the talk page when you didn't respond to the same section there - I apologize for that, I'll continue the discussion on the section you responded to. But for future reference, it's helpful to use the edit summary box to point other editors to your explanation for removing content. Thanks! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would ask you to provide a reliable source that supports your false claim that repeating the false claim of Bernice Sanders having dual citizenship is supported by you because of your statement: "the result of an apparently widely held misconception about his citizenship status". That is your claim and it is false. You must provide a reliable source to support this. It is far, far, far from the truth. The only people that make this claim are neo-Nazis and jihadists. Please read about the following concerning the dual citizenship insult first, respond to the huge concerns that I have and many, many other editor have about the material before you attempt to re-insert the horrible insult into the Bernie Sanders article: I can see why you might not understand because you just made an incorrect statement. You stated that there is a (and I am quoting you above) "apparently widely held misconception about his citizenship status". That statement is simply not true. It is not widely held. Also, it is very well known that neo-Nazis and jihadists make false claims against Jewish people that they are dual citizens to undermine their support of Israel. Please review the discussion of this topic on the talk page of Diane Rehm here: Discussion of false claim that Sanders is a dual citizen. Also, please provide a reliable source that says that there is a "apparently widely held misconception about his citizenship status". I am requesting a reliable source, not your personal opinion. Also, Sanders himself says that he is offended at the repetition of "Internet speculation" so why are we repeating the "Internet speculation" in the article concerning Bernie Sanders? What justification do you have for this repetition of this false claim? How does repeating something is scurrilous make this article better? What is your justification for the inclusion of the repetition of "Internet speculation"? I just find it a violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - did you say you would prefer to continue the discussion of the Sanders content on the article's talk page or here? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Koch Industries page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

improve the grammar and then add it, stop spoiling the article quality. Arichuvadi (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a few seconds to do that for you. But why are you also removing references from the article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered nominating the article for DYK? If not, don't hesitate to do it now. Read WP:DYK and create a nomination at T:TDYK. If you are confused, I am welcome to help you anyhow. --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and the nomination George Ho! I think it could use a bit of work, but unfortunately I won't have much time to do that in the next day or two - hopefully being on the front page will bring in some more people to help expand, thanks! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Just saw the revert there, but I'm not sure I understand what your edit summary means - do you mean there's some bad info on that article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The zh article looks inadequately referenced. Let's not use that. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the quality control you do on Wikipedia - vandalism patrol, giving comments in disputes, and making yourself available to answer questions by others. Thanks also for being a squirrel. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to do/be all of those things!! Your recognition is much appreciated, Blue Rasberry, thank you. And your mission sounds like a most noble one; I think I'll start paying closer attention to those types of articles. I hope you'll let me know if there's anything specific I can do to be of assistance - as a fellow admirer of rodents (I gather), I'll be more than happy to lend a helping articulated paw. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soft landing (rocketry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soft landing. 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) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you recently edited La Salle College High School. I have created a talk page discussion to discuss the issues related to the page, including the Public Relations campaign waged by the school and the "pool mass" topic. Your input would be appreciated. Talk:La Salle College High School

Thanks! 70.192.131.83 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love your screen name! ;) MDEVER802 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Also, I made that change again and put an explanation for it in there.

Ohhh, I see. Thanks for the explanation! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we chat a little? MDEVER802 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! How's it going? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that an editor has filed an request for arbitration at Koch Industries Reputation Management, in which you have been named as a party. I'm not involved, just letting you know. BMK (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's been withdrawn. BMK (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee procedure for the removal of withdrawn arbitration case requests, the Koch Industries Reputation Management is declined as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 09:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a source for G Frsh's birth.--90.197.108.38 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how do you know what it is? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because i was told by a friend but it was a bad idea to write it.--90.215.93.23 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor, The system has scheduled to add a new section "Controversy" to "Azimuthal equidistant projection". Please refrain from reverting it. Thanks. The system.

>Hello, I'm AdventurousSquirrel. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Azimuthal equidistant projection because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxztswnr (talk • contribs)

I can't believe that you declined this article at AFC [1]. What do you think you are doing? The article is well written, thoroughly referenced to impecable scholarly sources, and on an encyclopaedic subject. You will not often see a better article at AFC and it is just the sort of thing we should be accepting quickly. New editors like this need to be encouraged, not slapped in the face.

Your decline reason that the article is too short is patently absurd. It well over twice the length required at DYK for placing on the front page (in fact, I think I'll nominate it). AFC should not be trying to get articles perfect, that is not what it is about. It is about helping new editors. Once an article has reached the minimum standard it should be moved to mainspace, whatever warts it may have. SpinningSpark 23:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinningspark. That edit was over a year and a half ago, so I'm not sure I can recall my exact reasoning for suggesting that the proposed article's content might find a logical home somewhere within the Hearing aid article (I didn't hard decline it) - I don't know that it's clear to me even now that it can't, possibly being WP:SPLIT later if it grows too large to fit there comfortably.

I find your indignation and chastisement of my behavior to be pretty ironic, considering that (especially at the time) I was an editor without a great deal of experience with AFCs trying to help out with a pretty significant backlog, who suggested that the contributing editor might try being WP:BOLD and inserting that content into the existing Hearing aid article. In any case, thanks for your input - I'll certainly take it into consideration when looking at AFCs in the future. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel you were helping out, but retaining new editors is an important issue; way more important than clearing backlogs. Editors who have been knocked back a couple of times at AFC rarely come back, although this one seems to have been saved after I sent them an encouraging e-mail. I regularly see good, or salvagable articles when servicing CSD G13 deletion requests. G13 is a relatively new criterion and there was some controversy over its introduction. At the time, AFC had a back library of 100,000 old drafts that weren't being worked on. When these started to get tagged for deletion a few editors like myself and DGG started looking through them to find ones that could be saved. The rescue rate was up to one in five, especially the older ones when reviewing was poorer. There were so many we couldn't possibly look at them all before they got deleted, or even most of them. That means that we have probably lost thousands of editors through poor reviewing and mass deletion. I still see rescuable G13s at the rate of between one in ten and one in twenty. The basic rule of thumb should be that if the article in all probability would survive an AFD, then AFC has no business declining it. SpinningSpark 10:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. So to be clear, the intent of your message here was what, to ensure I never again accidentally dissuade new editors at AfC by purposefully dissuading me from ever again attempting to help with that backlog? Is it not important that editors who are submitting content to AfC receive timely feedback on their submissions? Isn't it likely that they'll lose interest sometime during the year and a half (?) they're waiting for a response? And again, I encouraged Cstokesrees (or thought I was encouraging them) to try boldly including their 'impeccably sourced, encyclopedic' content within the existing main article, thereby allowing it to be discussed, reworked, and evolve - rather than relegating it to some dark corner of Wikipedia that will be viewed maybe a few times a month. If I wasn't clear in doing that, then I certainly owe Cstokesrees an apology:

@Cstokesrees: - if my response disheartened you or made you feel unwelcome or the excellent content you contributed seem unappreciated, I'm truly sorry - that wasn't at all my intent. I'm glad that Spinningspark saved you with his encouraging email, and I'll take this as a teaching moment that will help me be clearer and more encouraging in my future responses to AfCs, if I'm not strongly discouraged from nosing my way in there again.

Spinningspark, I didn't create G13, I probably wouldn't have supported its creation, I definitely didn't intend for Cstokesrees's content to be lost forever, and at that time I had not seen G13s being used to justify such deletions. I'm sorry for the trouble my ignorance has caused. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's fine giving editors advice on improving a new article, but different people are willing to put different amounts of work into it. If they walk away, G13 is a real problem, the article will get wiped. The page should be posted to mainspace as soon as it meets the minimum standard. By all means carry on giving advice or comments for improvement, that can be done on the talk page, but you must not use the witholding of a review acceptance to try and force an editor to do more work. Look at it from the new editors point of view; if their page gets posted, they will be encouraged and may do more on Wikipedia. If they repeatedly get rejected, they are likely to decide that this is really not for them, it happens all the time. Your rejection was particularly off the mark in this case, the article was more than ready, as I hope to show to you when it gets accepted for DYK. I'm not trying to dissuade you from doing reviews (I know how hard reviewing is), I'm trying to persuade you to do them better. But if you won't do them better, then yes, I want you to stop. SpinningSpark 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark - Wiped by whom? Should the person doing the deleting have no obligation or interest in confirming that the thing they're deleting should be deleted? Particularly if the last reviewer (me, in this case) had the opinion that the content should be kept and merged into an existing article? Continuing to draw comparisons to the AfD process, I certainly think that good arguments could be made for a merge !vote...which again, is probably why I reviewed it as I did. If it's not clear (I know tones are hard to read over the internet), I'm trying to understand why you feel so strongly about this, and genuinely trying to understand where I went so, so wrong. Are you certain you're not conflating what I did with other examples of AfCs you've re-reviewed? With RadioFan's decline of the submission before me? Because from my perspective, even your initial message to me was unnecessarily confrontational, and a simple one-sentence explanation would have sufficed. An explanation which even after all this I'm still not sure I've gotten:

So, to avoid a similar mistake in the future, how should I handle a hypothetical example in which I strongly believe an AfC article shouldn't be a standalone, but believe the material is well-sourced and should be retained? Should I hijack that editor's work and insert it into the appropriate main article myself? Accept it into mainspace, then tag it for a merge, begin a discussion, and let the bureaucracy wheels spin? Perhaps that will entice the new editor to stay?

I understand your point that the way I reviewed it might be seen as a discouraging sign for some new editors, and I think a decent way to approach that hypothetical example would be to do exactly as I did in this case, but also to post a more personalized message onto the editor's talk page encouraging them to make the addition to the main article themselves, while offering them help in doing so. Would that be an acceptable course of action, in your opinion? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is the result of me fulfilling my duty of due diligence before deleting. However, you should not rely on that. There are a huge number of CSD requests every day, and the regular admins that service those requests do not have the time to examine all of them in the detail I have done here. To some extent, they rely on the reviewers who placed the tags. I agree that RadioFan's decline was even more gratuitous than yours. And yes, if you really believed it ought to be merged, you should have accepted it first and then tagged it. A two sentence stub might be a case for asking the editor to put it in another article, but this article is far from that. In my opinion, a merge request would fail. Now it is on my watchlist, I would certainly oppose it. Anything that is already long enough for DYK must be considered long enough by any other measure. Not only that, this article has ample scope for expansion. Just on the first page of Scholar results there are seven articles with the term in their title. That amounts to more than 50 pages of possible source material. SpinningSpark 15:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is all very confrontational and oddly aggressive. Spinningspark, what is your connection with this topic? Is there a conflict of interests you are not sharing here?--RadioFan (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. It is a failure of WP:AGF on your part to even suggest that I do. SpinningSpark 07:57, 14 November 2015 (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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What is the difference between 'shootout' and 'mass shooting'? You did not clearly explain this when you reverted my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for checking. There are good overviews at Mass shooting and that article, Shootout. Compare and contrast the definitions between the two. While some component of the mass shootings/attacks in question may have included a shootout, the most notable part of the incidents were the attacks themselves, unlike the other incidents listed in the shootout article, like the Pine Ridge Shootout, FBI Miami Shootout, Ruby Ridge, North Hollywood Shootout, etc. Hope this makes sense. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, the more notable the shootout, the likelihood of it being included on the Shootout page. I wonder who decides if an incident is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That might be a good thing to discuss on the article's talk page - every good list should have clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, so we don't end up with a series of things that don't make sense being grouped together. In fact, a lot of the items on that list would probably be better included on a different list. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Squirrel,

Your apology is appreciated but scarcely needed. If I had been offered the opportunity, I would have written an ALT1 much like yours. Please do not let this incident inhibit you from engaging in any of my DYK nominations.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Dewey L. Fleming at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah, thank you for the explanation! I think I misread/misremembered what the guide said - thought it was talking only specifically about the hook itself. I'll keep that in mind for future reviews. Sorry for the confusion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Relman Morin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria #1. New. Yoninah (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider WP:GAR and re-nominate this article for DYK as soon as GA status is attained. Thank you for your wikicontributions. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nat Caldwell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nat Caldwell and Gene Graham exposed the "sweetheart deal" that kept miners from being treated for black lung disease? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nat Caldwell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nat Caldwell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gene Graham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nat Caldwell and Gene Graham exposed the "sweetheart deal" that kept miners from being treated for black lung disease? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gene Graham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdventurousSquirrel. 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)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel, you did the review for Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran). I am the user that originally nominated the article. Since I'm not familiar with this project, could you tell me what is next and am I going to be expecting this to show on Wikipedia:Recent additions anytime soon? Thanks --AlmaBeta (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlmaBeta! For now, the discussion is still at Template talk:Did you know where any existing issues with the article and/or the hook itself are addressed. After it's approved, it'll migrate over to Template:Did you know/Queue, waiting to be promoted to the main page. Once all this occurs, you should receive a notification on your talk page updating you on your hook's promotion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monroe Karmin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when introducing actress Sharon Stone, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Monroe Karmin attributed her "wellness, fitness, and positive attitude" to her choice of undergarments? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monroe Karmin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monroe Karmin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdventurousSquirrel. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Geological history of the Precordillera Terrane.
Message added 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Boyd (journalist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Boyd missed out on the scoop of a lifetime but won a Pulitzer Prize in the process? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Boyd (journalist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Boyd (journalist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at something that appears strange to me?

"... tossed away a major exclusive by insisting on total conformation, or ..."

Was that supposed to be 'confirmation' ? Shenme (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are correct - thank you for catching that, Shenme! I'll fix it now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdventurousSquirrel, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 20:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdventurousSquirrel. 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)[reply]

Hello, AdventurousSquirrel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)[reply]

Hello, AdventurousSquirrel. 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)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mcpvp. Since you had some involvement with the Mcpvp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoinj, and I appreciated it. Would you also like to comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin Core, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin XT and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal? Have a great day. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Drusus Claudius Nero II. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Drusus Claudius Nero II until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blox. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Blox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine Solidarity Campaign until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marvista-entertainment-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marvista-entertainment-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]