Tomclarke

Welcome! edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from RichardWeiss! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome SqueakBox 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for File:Logo softonic.gif edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Logo softonic.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo softonic.gif edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo softonic.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

upyd edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

que upyd sea nacionalista española es, simplemente, mentira. upyd cree que el sistema del estado-nación está anticuado. por lo tanto, no es nacionalista de nadie "ni de los grandes (estados nacionales europeos) ni de los pequeños (regiones españolas)". Palabras literales y usadas en más de una ocasión. Por más que se empeñen ciertas personas, no todo es nacionalismo. No tienes que ser nacionalistas de unos o de otros, se puede no ser nacionalista. Y ésto es lo que se ha dicho por activa y pos pasiva desde este partido. Por lo tanto, decir nacionalista español para definirlo es, simplemente, falso. --213.254.88.62 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

por más que quieras vender que 2+2 son 5, seguirán siendo 4. --BernardaAlba (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is the English version of Wikipedia so it's not really appropriate for you to make your arguments in Spanish.

I will respond again: because the party itself doesn't describe itself as nationalist, doesn't mean that it isn't. Based on policy, external analysis and now Rosa Diez's most recent articles, it is clear that UPyD doesn't embrace or propose an anti-nationalist or a post-national agenda in any way. It is clear, in point of fact, according to Rosa Díez, that UPyD is "unequivocally national". What could this possibly mean if it isn't that the party is dedicated to the protection and promotion of the Spanish nation? I've provided links to back up this argument. In response, you revert my edits without any attempt to explain or cite sources, and no attempt to build consensus. Simply commenting on my talk page that UPyD isn't a nationalist party isn't the same as trying to engage in debate or build consensus. I will add this comment to your Talk pages as well. Tomclarke (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Leeté de qué va el republicanismo, o mejor, leeté a Habbermas. Nada más que decir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.254.88.62 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

7 September 2021 revision to the article Abdication of Napoleon, 1815 edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for this edit "Revision as of 14:43, 7 September 2021" to the article Abdication of Napoleon, 1815, but in making it you broke "text–source integrity" because all of the paragraph prior to your edit was covered by an in-line citation. Please provide a citation for the information you have added. You also needed to copy citation to the source to a position before your insert so that source continues to cover the start of the paragraph (in this case I have already done so--Revision as of 12:35, 24 September 2021 ). -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic