I periodically go through and clean out the old comments. This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Comments that remain for a long time are intended merely as reminders for things I need to work on someday. Those looking for my talk page archives are invited to refer to the history of this page.

Please add new comments to the bottom of the list below (you can use the handy dandy "New section" tab next to "Edit" at the top of the screen).

Thank you for putting up that quote and a link to the Wired article on your user page. It's been a while since I've laughed so much. As they say, it's funny because it's true :) §FreeRangeFrog 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, once I saw that one I knew I had to include it.DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Canadian friends have opened a thread about you on AN/I. Looks like you might have hit a nail on the head..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Saw that he reverted the IP talk page. The ANI post certainly doesn't help his case any. DreamGuy (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for two weeks as a sock of you-know-who. I think everyone is catching on by about the fourth time that this has happened. :) MuZemike 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing that report and letting me know the results. DreamGuy (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DG,

I've undone your revert to repressed memory. I think the page is certainly problematic, but I don't think JAR is POV-pushing and I certainly don't think the page is adequate. I'd rather work towards a better version that's reflecting the majority and minority opinion than play whack-the-revert-button with various editors. I've continued to read on the topic and repressed memories are certainly debateable, but we need to reflect the debate even if it means noting the spurious pseudoscience that most of the recovered-memory crowd cites. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack-A-Roe may not be intentionally pushing a POV (though he certainly may be -- he has a long history of questionable edits), but the edits in question certainly have that end result. He said something was a RS, we both say it's not, without other input the end result should be that the content should be removed. And we do not need to reflect spurious pseudoscience, per our WP:FRINGE standards. DreamGuy (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in on the talk page, I've started a section. I've always found JAR to be reasonable even if I disagree, and since I don't see this as an issue of reliability (my points are about undue weight) there's a good chance of convincing him or at least starting a discussion. Also, your revert undid my edits to the research section, so I replaced them. Just an FYI, I figured you weren't trying to undo that as well. My replacement didn't change any of the edits where you undid my undo of JAR's undo of my doing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dreamguy, I recall that you used to edit articles related to Jack the Ripper. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Montague Druitt? I'd be interested to know whether you feel it's comprehensive. Looking around on Google, I can see a lot of details that aren't in the article, but it could be that they're not reliable. The reason I'm asking is that it's up for featured article status; see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive1. But if you don't have time to look, no worries. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say thank you for looking at that Ripper-related featured-article candidate the other week. I was out of my depth with it, so your input was really helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DG.

I have a question concerning copyright and I value your knowledge on the subject.

What is the copyright status of works that are considered "illegal" (e.g. obscene)

For instance: Say during the 1950's someone published a comic book that with the implemention of the comics code became illegal to republish--would the owner of the copyright still have been allowed to renew the copyright?

Also, in the case of pulp novels, if the publisher renewed the copyright for the novel, would the copyright for the original cover have had to be renewed at the same time? I'm talking about the period during which the copyright had to be physically renewed by the original copyright holder or a legal heir.

Thanks in advance. Revmagpie (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on statement analysis. I was the one who originally created the talk page and likened statement analysis to voodoo and criticized that it seemed like a paraphrase of McClish's web site. I don't have a dog in this race and am neither for nor against statement analysis. However, I think the article was in pretty good shape as the result of a bunch of edits various users made from the time I started the talk page and I think you and another user have taken too much out of the article. Over a period of years, those editors added a lot of sourcing and examples and deleted most of the promotional material McClish or one of his boosters added to the article. I agree that more sourcing for the reliability of statement analysis is necessary and that the article should have more anti-statement analysis sources. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any tool that is widely used in law enforcement and can allow trained investigators to ACCURATELY spot WITHIN SECONDS (for example) that the Jon-Benet ransom note was fraudulent or that Susan Smith knew her kids were dead must have some merit to it. My main concern is that all of the cases presented on both McClish's web site and Sapir's web site show that people are guilty. If statement analysis is only used to gather incriminating evidence and never exculpatory evidence then that is a problem with it. I also question whether that source added recently -- Skeptics -- is a reliable one. There must be something critical written about statement analysis and CBCA in the scientific literature that would be more worthy.18.171.0.233 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at article Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar! Thanks for the reference, now I have another book to track down!

And as one fan to another, a message board post by Mr. Williams' granddaughter indicated that there were two unpublished Deputy Marshal Winters stories in her possession. Here's hoping someone someday publishes an omnibus volume and includes them!--Roland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally it's (with "you" being someone we direct to the first sentence and not necessarily you you):

"If there's an idea that the best of reliable sources say is true that you do not think is true, tough. Your personal opinion doesn't trump the experts. If you believe strongly enough about it then go become an expert, get published by reliable sources, and change the world's perceptions. Then and only then will we change the Wikipedia article. Until that time we have no idea of whether you're just some crank who only thinks he knows what the truth is. (Well, no, actually we already do have a really good idea that you are a crank who wouldn't know truth if it snuck up and split your skull with a lamp, but it's rude to come out and say that, and Wikipedia as a whole usually feels it is better to be nice than honest, so we'll pretend you might be a future world expert instead of telling you to just go away like we probably ought to.)"

"Truth" for a lot of people seems to just be a code word for "what I want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary". They had to come up with that phrase to take away the argument that "truth" trumps everything else. I strongly support its inclusion there for that reason and will be one of many to fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from removing it. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned in this arbcom case: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. That was... odd and difficult to follow. Best as I could figure it out it was Anupam suggesting a large conspiracy of people opposing him in different ways on different articles who are all bad because they oppose his edits. With the ANI thread confirming he comes from Conservapedia I guess I shouldn't be surprised at anything he does. DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a serious allegation about Malleus with no proof whatsoever offered. In addtion to Malleus himself, there have been two of us who have challenged this. Please respond on that page. LadyofShalott 14:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but the "allegation" is not new, and I thought it was very well-traveled territory. Furthermore, IRWolfie had already provided evidence for it on that very page. However, I appreciate the note here to alert me to the fact that some people are acting like this is shocking new information. I can certainly clarify it further. DreamGuy (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How terrible is this? It's like their literature search stopped at 1996, and their literature search for satanic ritual abuse didn't even happen. Then entire SRA section appears to be sourced almost entirely to one Jesus-freak book and Randy Noblitt. No mention of Mary DeYoung, Jean LaFontaine or Jeff Victor, not an ounce of skeptical literature, but an extensive discussion of the Extreme Abuse Surveys, ResearchEditor's little pet project. Which is described as "a cutting edge project". It's like I'm reading a Poe's law version of a MA thesis on SRA. Wow, just wow. I dare you to try to make it through the whole thing :) Friends should not let friends go to Adler Graduate School. I'm surprised the wikipedia page doesn't have the words 'diploma mill' in it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad, but I have seen worse. The course I took in Adlerian Psychotherapy at a state university only had five students and was a 400 level course for me but worth graduate credits for those pursuing a Master's just by writing an extra paper or two. It wouldn't have surprised me to discover that the papers written for that were similar to this one. I think the Adlerian Graduate School is just so happy to have anyone wanting to be affiliated with Adlerian theory these days that they aren't too picky. DreamGuy (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DG, your comment at WT:MED has been replied to. I don't know if you're going to reply to it again (since you have an ounce of common sense and a ton of experience, you must realize that it will be fruitless) but just in case I'm going to ask that you don't. I've been dealing with this sort of nonsense for a very long time now, and without attention it simply withers. There is no reasonable discussion to be had here, and while I appreciate and agree with your comments, long and bitter (ha!) experience has taught me that it won't get anywhere. Since none of this affects any actual pages, I'm just ignoring it and letting it die. If it ever gets to the point of a RFC/U or AN/ANI posting, you are welcome to give your thoughts - but we both know WT:MED isn't the place to address this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dream. This comment [2] does not add anything to the topic at hand. Thus would suggest you remove it cross it out. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should say I suggest you cross it out :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you work with Doc James and other experienced medical editors to improve the article. Looking through the article talk page, I see many times when you and others have engaged in making unhelpful commentary on other editors. On an article talk page, please strongly stick to commenting on text and sources. Issues you have with a particular editor's actions don't belong there. If you can at all possible, then just keep your frustrations to yourself (or partner or stuffed toy or whatever helps you release) and try to move on. If you must comment, begin on the editors own talk page. If that fails to deal with the issue, there are other forums. But article talk pages (and WP:MED talk page) should not be used for this. If you stick to this, the article talk page remains focussed and becomes a place where other editors can help, rather than a battleground where good editors keep clear. Keeping the discussion focussed on one area rather than e.g. the whole lead or an entire section, can also help. No editor is perfect and I've lost my cool on WP too. It can help to take a break for a day or so and then when cooled down, try to find something to genuinely apologise for and something to agree on to move forward. If you can praise another editor's edits, that helps too. Colin°^Talk 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could just as easily strongly suggest DocJames and others work with me, as I have tons of experience dealing with controversial articles and problem editors, and this one in particular. I also had a lot of experience blocking the efforts of POV pushers on the Rorschach test article for years before DocJames came along and ended up getting all the credit for it because, excuse me if I am a tad rusty on the details, one of the POV pushers there stalked him and tried to threaten his job and it made the papers. I may not get any credit for my hard work, but that doesn't mean anyone else is more important than I am.

And as far as taking a break for a day or so from the DID article -- you know, I took a break for several *months* recently, and can you guess what happened? A POV pusher whose problem edits had been successfully opposed in the past returned when he saw I wasn't active there and made close to 1,000 edits in a row (I'm serious, check the history) to turn the thing into his own personal opinion page. It stayed like that far, far longer than it should have. Somehow nobody else caught it or was willing to do anything about it. But I fixed it, and with the help of WLU and the input of others, it stayed fixed.

So, please, take your own advice and praise another editor's edits. Lecturing me like I'm some newbie to Wikipedia who knows nothing about DID or other psychology topics is both insulting and not a great sales pitch for anything else you have to say. If you want to help improve the article, great. If you want DocJames to help improve the article, also great. I'll work with you both, and anyone else who has a good faith desire to improve the article. But you have to work with me also, and so far that seems to be the part that is lacking. DreamGuy (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, please don't get all defensive about this. Your hot-headed response above is exactly what is causing your problems at DID. There are times in that talk page where your commentary should have got you blocked. The section with the comment Doc James diffs above is particularly bad, and typical of how badly you are behaving towards Tylas and any other editor who doesn't make the article how-you-want-it. Right now, I'm just reviewing the situation at DID. I'm sure you are a fantastic editor elsewhere on WP but that doesn't concern me. I'm just responding to the request for help at WP:MED. I'm no medical expert and don't have access to the sources so I won't be much use unless you're wanting someone to peer-review the prose -- which requires a degree of stability that article can only dream of at present.

I agree that Tylas is just not getting a lot of WP policy/guidelines stuff and is difficult to work with. Either you deal with her respectfully, professionally and cool-headedly, or I suggest you find other places to apply your gifts to WP. Seriously. There are times on that page when you are the problem, and definitely not helping things. You've got to take all that frustration about other editors and release it somewhere other than the article talk page. Everyone has got to stop reverting all the time, and slow down. And if you expect Tylas to engage in a source-based discussion on article text, then you have to also. Many times in the discussion, I see the two of you just shouting your personal opinions over the top of each other. Do you realise that your belief that you are "right" is just as strong as hers? You know that what counts on WP is the sources, so use them. Don't just claim the best sources say X. Prove it. Offer example text with sources and get a discussion going round that text. I know you've done this but that needs to be the pattern. Stop claiming Tylas is POV pushing and citing WP:COMPETENCE. You might "know" or "believe" this but it is a personal attack and unhelpful. It is just a technique to dismiss and belittle your opponent.

There are two extremes of editors who deal with controversial articles. There's the OrangeMarlin wack-a-mole approach where you go round reverting and insulting all those editors who "damage" Wikipedia with their ignorance and delusions. Or there's the Eubulides approach where you show every editor respect; where you explain every revert with a talk page note; where you try to learn from the misguided addition to see if there's something missing or to-be-improved in the article; where you don't boast about your own qualifications to editor or shout about the other guy's incompetence. Eubulides legacy is several FAs on controversial topics that are still solid articles years after he left.

I suspect you getting hot under the collar and thinking of a biting reply to this patronising little twerp who has landed on your talk page. I'm just trying to find ways of getting those editors on DID to work successfully together. If you think you're already perfect, then fine, just delete this post. Colin°^Talk 07:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented here as I think you are a really good editor and want to see you continuing to edit. Your are a huge plus to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Wikipedia is a lot of the so-called established editors treat other longterm editors worse than some random know-nothing POV-pusher. If people can't deal effectively with some nutcase with a clearly stated agenda to ignore our policies to promote their own view, we've got no chance of dealing succfessfully with the POV-pushers who are better at hiding it.

I had to give up Wikipedia for months because I couldn't deal with this nonsense. I don't know that I'm even really back. It's just not worth it. While editors like DocJames and Casliber (no offense, Cas, you do good work, just saying...) get kudos from other editors and write ups in the Wikipedia Review, someone like me who has been here longer and made more substantial, direct impact fighting off really bad edits gets kicked around. It's just not worth it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading the comments to the Signpost editorial on the death of Aaron Swartz, and I noticed the edit summary you used here. I'm not going to comment there directly myself, and I have some sympathy with parts of what you are saying there (there was an article in The Times by David Aaronovitch titled 'Even if everything is free, there can be a price' - Thursday 17 January 2013, that says some similar things), but the edit summary is a bit much. You might want to consider clarifying that if things get a bit heated over what you've said? Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without creating an entire essay on the topic, about the only clarification I would make is that of course Wikipedia is not responsible, just as the prosecutor, government, and copyright laws are obviously not responsible. Aaron Swartz killed Aaron Swartz, likely because of a long-running mental illness that distorted his perceptions of the world so that he thought the only possible response was to kill himself. If only the people who want to honor his life tried to do something about the real cause instead of exploiting the tragedy to try to advance their personal political views. DreamGuy (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You're absolutely correct in further reverting. I thought the two (apparently) new editors had cancelled each other out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dream, having accepted your puristic view on Dracula, have a look at a new refernece that has popped up to http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Dracula-Bram-Stoker/dp/3943559009/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360082007&sr=1-1&keywords=Hans+Corneel+de+Roos#reader_3943559009. As far as I can see that is an illustrated version of Bram Stoker's Dracula done by a photographer and thus hardly a reliable source in the WikiPedia sense. I'll rather you have a look than I get myself into further trouble! - Jens Jens sn (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it on the article. Maybe someone removed it already? DreamGuy (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 43, at the very end of the Bram Stoker section. Is still there. Check it on Amazon :-) Jens sn (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, when you said Dracula I looked at Dracula, because I don't consider Vlad the Impaler to be the same thing. Should have realized you were talking about the article I met you on. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-) I see you have removed it. I have done some serious editting on the site, documented in a new Talk Section. I am far from done, but basically I ahve also looked at teh refernces and the following are most definitely not Credible Sources in teh WikiPedia sense:

Count Dracula's Legend". Romaniatourism.com. Retrieved 2012-08-17 (4)

"The young Dracula environment and education". Exploringromania.com. Retrieved 2012-08-17.(9)

"Vlad Tepes Dracula's internal policy". Exploringromania.com. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (13)

"Vlad Tepes". Retrieved April 24, 2012.(15)

"Vlad the Impaler second rule [3]". Exploringromania.com. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (16)

"Vlad Tepes". Guide-to-castles-of-europe.com. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (19)

"The Life and Deaths of Vlad the Impaler". Tabula-rasa.info. Retrieved 2012-08-17 (20)

Rezachevici, Constantin (2002). The tomb of Vlad Tepes: the most probable hypothesis. Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4.[1] (22)

"Top 10 Royals Who Would Have Been Terrible On Facebook". Time. 9 November 2010. (23)

"Story". Library.thinkquest.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (34)

Miho Bučinjelić (Michael Bocignolus Raguseus). "Epistula Michaelis Bocignoli Ragusei". Mudrac.ffzg.hr. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (35)

"Epistula Michaelis Bocignoli Ragusei in multiple languages". Archive.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (36)

Letopisetul cantacuzinesc" (in (Romanian)). Ro.wikisource.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (37)

Prof. Ioan Scurtu, historian[dead link] (39)

Nicu Parlog (2009-11-30). "Vlad Tepes - the first victim of a press campaign". Descopera.ro. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (40)

"Stefan Andreescu - Vlad Tepes Dracula". Scribd.com. Retrieved 2012-08-17. (41)

They are mainly webpages, blogs and other "stuff".

I am looking for your advice. Should I delete them and if so, what do you do with all the crap that has them as sources?Jens sn (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a mess. I'd suggest you not remove these yourself because you obviously have a source in mind that you believe would be more credible. And you're probably right, because a good number of those above are clearly not appropriate at all.

Some of the above sources are probably fine by our WP:RS standards. For example, wikisource.org and archive.org have some good material, though they have to be judged on a case by case basis on the merits of the individual source posted there (haven't looked at the ones you cite yet). Scribd.com is almost never appropriate (can't recall any time it was) because it's either just personal stuff or a copyright violation (in which case a reference to the original text but without a scribd.com link might be fine, if it met RS rules).

I'll probably have to go through those myself sometime when I can focus my attention on it. You should probably post those to the talk page of the article if you haven't already just in case someone else comes along to see them and act on them before I get a chance. The more people independently agreeing sources aren't good enough to keep the more likely they are to stay out of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was not going to replace any of them, I accept my book it not a credible source until someone else says so :-) I'll do some work on the Talk Page. Thanks for your advice. 94.76.238.116 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! TJRC (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Guidelines for layout of bird articles. See also the archive links in that section for past discussion of the policy. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, project guidelines are not policy, and you should stop pretending they are. Actual policy is to use lowercase for nouns that are not proper nouns. This is how Wikipedia and the whole English-speaking world does it. It's really ridiculous some silly project guidelines are being cited to overrule the standards of the project as a whole and the real world. DreamGuy (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a better explanation of why you reverted my edits to Savage Land? What concerns do you have, exactly? You called one of the sources banned. Which one did you mean? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? My understanding is that banned sources can not be inserted into articles, as the changes will not save. Finally, you questioned the notability of the section. I don't understand that. Out of universe reception sections are one of the few ways to actually establish notability for fictional plot elements. What notability concerns do you have, exactly? I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Are you saying that the sources themselves are not notable enough to quote? USA Today and CraveOnline are notable. The other one, whatculture.com, I'm not really sure about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "compared to Skull Island" isn't exactly Reception, just a bit of trivia. It might be worth mentioning somewhere, but on its own it makes no sense. WhatCulture.com is not a reliable source nor a notable commentator -- the fact that it mentions something in one of its many pointless lists isn't worth commenting on pretty much anywhere, let alone an encyclopedia. It's an ad-delivery site, basically, providing no content worthy of an external link, let alone our more stringent reliable sources rules. I thought it was supposed to be in Wikipedia's blacklist, but perhaps it's just one of many sites discussed as being bad that never got blacklisted (the people who run that list are hesitant to add too many sites, as every edit to Wikipedia has to be run against every URL in the list). DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SirRobertAnderson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a freaking waste of time. I uploaded that before the new rules for documenting sources were instituted, so didn't include details that were not asked for at that time. Use some common sense. This is extremely public domain. People going around tagging old images without knowing what they are doing are going to undo countless years of effort from hundreds of users and cause a lot of articles to lack good, historical images. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Faust and Margaret in the Summer House-Willy Pogany.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not this guy again. It's CLEARLY public domain. It's bizarre that anyone would question it. But at least someone read the description and saved it from knee-jerk deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

As the CEO of Zorro Productions, I was involved in this lawsuit. Judge Collins made two rulings in that case, one favorable and one not so favorable. In the end she vacated (i.e., threw out) both rulings, such that neither has the force of law. The proper way to handle this in Wikipedia is to treat the incident as a non-incident, in other words, the entire episode should be disallowed as though it had never happened. However, if you insist on including only one of the two rulings (and even if you cited both), then the disclaimer that the ruling was vacated must be added. Otherwise, it is as if you cited, say, a murder case without noting whether it resulted in a conviction or an acquittal. I appreciate that you enjoyed the Queen of Swords, but, in our opinion, it really was not only a rip off of The Legend of Zorro (as well as Lady Rawhide), but it was marketed by the producers as such. We believe that their marketing campaign was the smoking gun. In the end, Paramount, Sony and Zorro Productions entered into a settlement that we regarded as fair and favorable, though the details must remain confidential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.223.190 (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is original conclusion on your own of the legal situation to try to advance your own specific legal claim: to claim ownership over an intellectual property. What you consider to be the proper way for Wikipedia to handle this situation is obviously biased. Your editing of the article is a clear violation of WP:COI rules. DreamGuy (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, I am not editing the article because I "enjoyed Queen of Swords", I am editing it because I don't like when people with a bias put misleading or downright false information into an article, especially when they hope to profit financially off of it. I don't think I even ever saw anything of Queen of Swords except some TV commercials many years back. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per request, we have now footnoted the appropriate court document vacating (i.e., rendering null and void) the Queen of Swords ruling. Because Judge Collins’ ruling is null and void, it is a non-fact, and really has no place on Wikipedia. May we remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.223.190 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like you didn't even read anything I said. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have, once again, removed our properly cited and accurate statement that the Sony v. Fireworks judgment was vacated. Your removal is misguided for two reasons: 1) As required by yourself and Revupminster, ZPI cited the court order from that legal action which states, unequivocally and without any subjective interpretation, that the court’s order has been vacated. There can be no clearer or objective evidence offered. This is legal fact, not interpretation. Maybe you privately disagree with the court, but that is your opinion and you should keep it off the pages of Wikipedia. Sometimes, I disagree with legal results. For example, I don’t believe that OJ Simpson should have been acquitted of murder. But he was and that is the simple Wikipedia-worthy fact. No legal practitioner would or could interpret the courts order to vacate to have any other possible meaning than that the original ruling was voided. If you feel that it means something else, cite your source. 2) Zorro Productions has dealt on this issue in an honest, transparent manner. We could have easily gone into the Wikipedia system as a third party in order to avoid the very claim that you hide behind – that as a company asserting copyright rights we must be considered biased and our veracity suspect. We at Zorro Production exercise the highest of business ethics and for that very reason declined to hide our identity.

We hope that you understand why your position is erroneous and that you will stop removing our insertion that we will now reinsert. If you do not, we will seek third party mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.223.190 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. The vacated judgment in that one particular case doesn't change the fact that Zorro is clearly and undeniably in the public domain by publication date alone, and the knowledge the judge shared based upon that fact are still valid even if you settled out of court to avoid the judge's ruling. Editing the article to make the results of this case sound like something published in 1919 is still under copyright is outright deceptive, and you are clearly doing it to try to trick the world into believing you own something you don't so you can make money off of it. I don't know how you can claim to "exercise the highest of business ethics" when your entire business model is based upon fraud. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit here [3] and the edit summary. I'm just wondering what it is about Find a Grave that violates WP:EL? (This is a good faith question). Thanks! Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's edited by the public in general and does not necessarily contain authoritative information. It's just some one on the Internet, essentially. See points 11 and 12 in links to be avoided. As we are supposed to link to good sources of information instead of merely providing a web directory of random links, it doesn't meet our standards. It was also mass spammed to this encyclopedia in the past and really should not be included anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had the same question about Barbara Nichols. Given that this link is so commonplace, shouldn't this be adjudicated somewhere, perhaps wherever it is that spam links are blacklisted? Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy - It seems you could be mischaracterizing WP:EL regarding FindAGrave since Perennial websites:FindAGrave states:

• As an external link: * Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves.

The FindAGrave link in this car is not situated within the article and conveys information - photo of gravemarkers, GPS of grave location and so on - that are not included within the article itself. If you think that FindAGrave links should not be allowed within WIkipedia's content then an WP:RFC should be opened in the appropriate venue. Shearonink (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FindAGrave links can exist - but mainly just on the article about FindAGrave. They absolutely cannot be used as reliable sources and almost never as external links. DreamGuy (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamGuy! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am thinking of reopening the question of whether examiner.com should be blacklisted. The reason is that I think it's just another unreliable source. Nothing will ever stop editors from adding unreliable sources to WP, and the blacklist hasn't stopped them from adding examiner.com – they simply list the article title and omit the URL. Which is a pain in the neck for conscientious AfD participants, because it forces us to search for the article title and read it from Google. It would be much easier if we could just click a link in the WP article that is up for AfD. And then deal with it the same way as say blogs, gawker, and other non-blacklisted unreliable sources.

What I am wondering about is this post from May 2009, where you reported seeing links to pages on examiner.com as if they were published stories from the San Francisco Examiner. This seems to be the source for one long-standing argument for keeping it blacklisted – that it masquerades as the San Francisco Examiner. But actual examples of this happening have never been provided. If you went back through your editing history for May 2009, do you think you could remember the articles where that happened? I would like to find out whether there was a pattern to this, or whether (as I suspect) it was simply a mistake by an inexperienced editor. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009? These days I'm lucky if I remember 2014. I don't know when I'd get a chance to go digging back that far, and I think it's better off remaining blacklisted to prevent mass spamming of links again. People who list examiner.com articles at AFD seem like they would obviously be providing weak evidence of notability and would seem to be easy to see through. Any small convenience to people checking these sources in AFD does not make up for the chaos that would reign if people were able to link to their own blog posts to make money. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have more experience in clean-up work than I do. I do think that examiner.com may be stepping in to fill the gap caused by the crisis in local news. A lot of local newspapers are gone, and even if they are surviving they have downsized to the point where they don't have an art critic anymore. It's been a while and I think that could be revisited. I am also wondering if there was ever any evidence of link spamming actually happening. The potential is there, of course, but to a certain extent all online journalists are under pressure to bring in page views. I don't think we should blacklist because of the potential for abuse. We should blacklist when we have proof that abuse has happened. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DreamGuy, I can really get the message of your struggle. People like you make Wikipedia the World's best research source. Would you mind me reposting 'The eternal struggle'?? If not, let me know. :) Hridith Sudev Nambiar (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick question: having seen it in a lot of external links-sections, what's wrong with findagrave.com? Thanks, regards, --Gott (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the answer myself. Sry, --Gott (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They reference a PDF file, which is the book itself. The book in this file is in public domain and does not contain any identification number. I am in no way affiliated with this website, only used this as a source for research purposes as it is an easy source to verify the references directly without actually needing to go and purchase a separate book for verification purposes. I specifically referenced quotes and page numbers in the document because I read the book myself. I also have not contributed any other cites to any other books from this website, nor do I plan to, unless I happen to find a source that is also easily referenced. BrettWarr1 (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit,

Wouldn't referencing Project Gutenberg also be promotion if all documents are "required" to be referenced from their cite? Seems a little hypocritical. 'Planetebook' is a free online source of online e-books that does not ask for donations. Project Gutenberg does. BrettWarr1 (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So cite the original, not the spam link. 01:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DreamGuy. You reverted my edit at Marvel Comics and you said "Can't understand rationale for not applying Fair Use here- would apply to nearly all images." Please consult the links in my edit summary to find out what a use rationale means in this context, and if you think all the NFC can be met, write one. Only then it is permissible to restore the image. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bot? Because the image file already has fair use rationale in it AND is OBVIOUS. 01:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a bot. The image File:Secretwars1.png has on its description page a fair use rationale for the article Secret Wars only, not for article Marvel Comics. Each use must be accompanied by a separate rationale. Even 'obvious' rationales must be spelled out on the image description page. Please don't revert the edits until valid rationales (if applicable) are on the image description pages. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop until you get it. The image ALREADY HAS fair use rationale for all three articles. And I repeat: the fair use is obvious if you'd take half a second to think about it. That makes your edits worse than a bot, especially with you trying to pretend like you're following rules. DreamGuy (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy calls for separate rationales for each use. Naming the articles is not enough. I've split the rationale into three. Thanks. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use has a specific meaning in the real world. You'd be better served adding the text to fit the policy for all the images, where possible, than deleting stuff willy-nilly. DreamGuy (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's image use policy is stricter than fair use is legally. Writing detailed rationales is a part of that. You are absolutely correct in that Wikipedia would be better if people (including me) would provide those rationales instead of removing images. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that. If someone wants to use an image in an article, it's their burden of proof to provide the rationale (see WP:NFCCE). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revisit the discussion per sources presented there. I pinged users there, but the ping may not have worked (per a comment at the discussion). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already closed as Keep before I saw that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where was there an RfC? I see a RM discussion ("Requested move 29 November 2015") that's still open and has plenty of opposition. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some opposition, but it says seven days right on it, and now it's over. The consensus is to move it. And not to do other things extremists want to do. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw it, it was still open. Nobody had closed it or determined what the consensus was. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The people participating even said what the consensus was and waited a few hour for the official time stamp. Guess you didn't see that. DreamGuy (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a good explanation in your edit summaries. They are in most cases not needed, as there are already images that are contemporaneous with the post card images. Not Gallery and a few other issues also. And if you are going to leave the sort of edit summaries that you have - look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tucks_Post_Card_Edits at least. The images are not necessarily of any benefit to most of the articles JarrahTree 03:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. And I saw it on an admin board. Did you see the same board? The actions taken by the person who removed them were massive overreach. DreamGuy (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of opinion, it started at arbcom and went on from there, that in itself suggests that there are many newbies that need not just kid gloves, but very clear understanding of how to work things out, I differ with the closing at the noticeboard, the reaction of the uploader clearly showed total lack of attempt at mediation or direct communication with the other person...that could have solved a lot of things. JarrahTree 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets try an example of how things can be interpreted - this new user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cenfin8 was posting agt the rate of 3 edits a minute early this am. Australian rail edits are notorious sites for sock accounts. So fully formed articles with refs and legitimate subjects arrive on the watchlist after a flurry. Some very telling spelling problems, and also a few oher tell-tale signature issues for a known sock in the edit summary. What to do? advise the editor it all looks strange? accuse of sock activity? I wonder. JarrahTree 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images look fine to me. That's what we're talking about, right? You're talking about text edits by a different user above, and the ones I looked at looked fine too. Is this some sort of conspiracy? Because one of these accounts has to do something bad before you assume they're up to no good. DreamGuy (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're looking at the images, I am looking at the process - we are on two very different things. A new user with no apparent on wiki history does certain things. We have very clear guidelines of WP:AGF abd WP:DONTBITE. However I find dumping new material at relative speed nothing to do with conspiracy or assumptions. It is something that requires a certain level of skepticism I would say, where AGF and DONTBITE are trumped by the duck test for possible issues. If you think it is ok for a totally new user can dump at 3 edits a minute is ok then we are very definitely on different pages, nice talking with you - cheers JarrahTree 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are the process, in this case. You've got some whole other scenario thought up. I can't address that. It's even a different user. I am a firm believer in the duck test, but, again, that means someone did something wrong, which I don't see, and you've never given evidence of. DreamGuy (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the deletion notice but you still haven't produced any evidence that this image is in the public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said it wasn't. Mugshots default to PD. Even if not it's clearly PD, and even the person who put the notice there had originally said that, so the deletion is false. DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying the file is not public domain. Please prove me wrong, if you can. Jonathunder (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to prove your assertion? I've been pretty clear all over Wikipedia. Choosing not believe something is not the same thing as proving them wrong. I've said a lot more than you, and you just say then "prove me wrong". Already did. DreamGuy (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. But despite your handwaving, it looks like the file is headed for deletion. Jonathunder (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise. surprise. The editor who deleted it off Commons is trying to do the same here.DreamGuy (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deleted, shall you contact an administrator who will delete it? --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is now kept as fair-use image. Don't try to violate consensus. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:F. W. Murnau-Sunrise-Gaynor and O'Brien in Boat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:F. W. Murnau-Sunrise-Gaynor and O'Brien on Farm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

That is a sampling of your recent comments in talk spaces, showing a pattern of combativeness, failure to assume good faith, and a general battleground mindset, some of it bordering on WP:NPA violation. Please confine your comments to Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and principles, not other editors' suspected motives. If an editor is repeatedly violating p&g, you can post on their talk page or report them at WP:ANI, but please refrain from "making it personal" in discussions. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bijeljina massacre. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:143.176.216.29. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Garrett may need to be re-evaluated. In South by Southwest they released a movie loosely based on the case The Last Word of Johnny Frank Garrett http://schedule.sxsw.com/2016/events/event_FS19784 and there had been previously a documentary and a fictional novel based on his case http://www.thelastworddocumentary.com/nl.php WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SunandaGandhi (cropped) .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deltopia 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/Deltopia 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. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamGuy! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The law of one is being preached in churches in silicon valley. Is that worthy of a wiki article? Spacelord Knyte (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Egypte louvre 058new.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned and redundant to File:Egypte louvre 058.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 16 § People by mental disorder categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]