Sirswindon

= YOU SHOULD ADD

You should add to your user page: Above all else --- SirSwindon has a disdain for items in biographies containing 'hearsay' material, lacking valid citations but likes to copy secondhand sources full of 'hearsay'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:413E:3148:3112:7CB8:CB56:C1E6 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles Armitage Brown‎

Not a problem at all, your article is shaping up nicely. Before I forget, welcome to Wikipedia!-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Laval

I am happy to see you've made great strides with Pierre Laval, particularly the coverage of his trial. Is there any chance you could expand upon Laval's movement to the right? I assume (but it is perhaps not apparent) that the varicose vein's which had led to his discharge from the army precluded him from serving during the war. I would assume also that his view of the military changed from the extreme which is mentioned (from 1913) - some coverage of his political activities 1914-1918 would perhaps be welcome. Regards, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sirswindon

I recently looked your 2 articles, and I must say I am impressed at how far those pages have come along! ---BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this is happening, but there is a way to get at those vandals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revert_vandalism#Warnings Each time a vandal strikes, give them a little warning, but if this persists, an admin will block that user/IP. Best of luck with the rest of your articles! -BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Laval

I have reverted certain edits you performed on Pierre Laval, as they deleted material that was properly sourced, and included a statement which argued a non-neutral position. I applaud your efforts to improve the article, but this particular sequence of edits was less than productive. If you can demonstrate by reference to reliable, verifiable sources that your edits were proper and appropriate, feel free to re-include them with references that support them. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

People who have an unreasonable dislike for Laval post these so called reliable sources. However when you go to these sources they are based on hearsay and not facts. If you will not allow a caution to be posted than better to eliminate the items. No matter what you personally feel about Laval, many Frenchmen understand his motivations were to save France and not to allow it to be taken over by Germany. I met his son-in-law in London in 1948. I have read everything written about Laval since the 1930s. He was no angel, but he was not the man, as some have pictured him. Wikipedia represents objective and fair biographical material. Let us leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 February 2011

Aside: Two tips, Sirswindon: When you reply to someone on your own talk page, a) it's still worth signing with ~~~~ (so we can tell who-said-what-when), and b) it's worth letting them know you've replied, with a quick note on their talk page. You can use the {{talkback}} template - as I've done, here.  Chzz  ►  02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clear you've put a great deal of time and effort into your work on the article. This may prove to be a two-edged sword, however. The work you've put into it, as described on the Discussion page, may have pushed you into the original research arena. Rather than continue along an avenue I am ill-equipped to explore myself, I'm going to recommend that either a third opinion be sought regarding the veracity of the Fishman reference, or that the dispute resolution mechanism be brought into play. I, personally, remain unconvinced that one reference work "trumps" the other, but without having a reference library ready to hand, I'm unable to compare them directly.

At this point, I don't see a compelling reason for me to remain involved in the matter, as I don't feel qualified to comment further on the accuracy, completeness or neutrality of any of the sources being considered. I am therefore stepping away from the article and any direct involvement with it, although should it appear on my recent-changes queue, I will examine it for obvious vandalism. Best of fortunes to you. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is quite clear from reading Fishman, that she only quoted another source, who then also quoted another source. She also included a line which was not in the other source. When I arrived at the original source it was not there as well. So all I could do is eliminate her quote in full.Sirswindon (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you never answer to my contributions in the talk page of the Laval article ? I was actually looking into this point but for the second time my contribution has been totally ignored. ([1] [2]). --Anneyh (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize but I did not think I needed to supply an answer. I have a copy of Marrus and Paxton in front of me and it is clear they did not do original research, they only quoted the Paris pamphlet you pointed out. Nowhere that I can find is there verification for the Boegner-Laval "so-called" conversation. What if in that Paris pamphlet it had been written "Laval replied: kill all the Jews" and Marrus and Paxton had quoted that, would you want it included in the Wikipedia article?Sirswindon (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you're questioning: even in the academic world, if a first person writes a mistake, it is very likely that this mistake gets copy and pasted in further works without any verification. I also find it exciting to make this kind of detective work in looking for sources. On the other hand, Wikipedia's base of work are secondary sources and the discussion on which sources to consider or not and what to write into an article and what not belongs to its talk page. --Anneyh (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago I was taught that poor scholarship was as serious an offence as plagiarism --- "Scholarship demands thorough research; examining many conflicting sources then weighing the evidence and explaining how and why it was weighed as it was; also objectivity in assessing the validity of the material and attempting to present an unbiased credible summary with detailed citations. Holding a doctorate degree is no guarantee of being a scholar; scholarship depends upon what one does after completing the Ph.D."Sirswindon (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your answer... I was actually kindly inviting you to get back to the Laval talk page. I'll check back the article later today and will try to give reader feedback on how we can improve the article. --Anneyh (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Trelawny

Thanks for the help on the article! This was the first article I've worked on where I had to deal with biographies contradicting each other, so that was tricky. I actually managed to track down a copy of Prell's book, it was pretty helpful with some of the details. I'll make sure I take another look through it. I'm hoping to bring the article to Did You Know and maybe Good Article if I have the energy. I have a lot of copyediting to do, as well.

I tried not to only cite Armstrong for basic facts, I bought her book before I realized the depth of her scholarship. St Clair really did paint a pretty negative picture, I hope my first draft of the article didn't come across quite that negative. I'm about 1/3 to 1/2 of the way through Gryll's book right now, it seems like a pretty trustworthy book. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the picture of Hans and Sybil Eysenck. I think it is very precious :) have a nice day WissensDürster (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Hans and Sybil Eysenck.jpg

Hi Sirswindon. Could you please add the year the photo was taken? Thanks. --Leyo 12:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Leyo, I wish I could date the Photo. I first met Hans and Sybil in 1949 when I drove them in my Renault from London to Bristol to attend a British Psychological Society conference. I keep in touch with them after they were married, right up until Hans died. It could have been in the 1970s, but that would only be a guess. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the reply. You might also add a decade or range of years to the file description page. --Leyo 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Mint Las Vegas

I noticed you re-added the material about the origin of the name, with an edit summary that you heard it from the owner. Unfortunately, this does not meet the verifiability requirement since it is not published in a reliable source. Remember, Wikipedia does not report truth, only what is verifiable. If you don't mind, would you please remove what you have added or put in a citation to a published reliable source. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

or on the reviewer's talk page.

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rinaldo Paluzzi has been accepted

Rinaldo Paluzzi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

However, the article does need additional documentation. In particular it needs references for the individual works that are in the permanent collection of the major museums listed--each one needs a reference--the museum site is ideal, but other sites will serve if necessary. As anyone who disagrees can take it for a discussion at AfD, I;d suggest adding as many references as you an as soon as possible. By the way, if you have any connection with the artist, you need to declare your conflict of interest on the article talk page or here; preferably both. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What you have requested has been accomplished. Thank you for your suggestions. Sirswindon (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JNW (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, you haven't supplied any references to support the edits you're trying to make. Thank you, JNW (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sirswindon, what I've tried to explain at the talk page for Abstract Expressionism is that the encyclopedia can not call an artist an Abstract Expressionist just because you say he is. I believe you wrote other editors that a museum director said he was an Abstract Expressionist, but we can not accept claims based on a personal conversation. There need to be published reliable sources to support content. Those sources exist for most of the artists you've mentioned, but thus far I have not been able to find any for Paluzzi. If you have articles or books in which he's described as an Abstract Expressionist, please add them to his biography first. Thank you, JNW (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit here [3], in which your undid the edit of an editor who correctly concluded that a long unsourced and non-neutral essay is not an acceptable Wikipedia article. Please feel free to restore content which is properly sourced and neutral in tone. I've also tagged your edit here [4], where you've again applied the AE designation without supplying a published source--see my explanation of April 17, above. If a source isn't given I'll remove the claim. Thank you, JNW (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Abstract expressionism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you....Modernist (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JNW (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Abstract expressionism

I noticed you removed a bunch of comments as "no longer relevant". You shouldn't be deleting other editors' comments unless you were going to archive them. I've restored the comments. If you feel the older comments should be archived, that's fine but it's bad form to just delete comments. freshacconci talk to me 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Freshacconci: 99% were my "Talk" so please archive all of them as they are no longer relevant.

Please don't remove the correct COI warning on Hans eysenck

Please don't remove the correctly placed COI warning on the Hans Eysenck. It could be viewed as disruptive. There is a detailed discussion on the article talk page. Please add your comments there instead.Baroccas (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Economic study of the Seychelles completed in 1965 by futuologist Donald Prell.pdf

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Economic study of the Seychelles completed in 1965 by futuologist Donald Prell.pdf, 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) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2. It was researched and published in 1965 and Prell assures me that there is no copyright of the study and he has given it to the world to read and quote. Sirswindon

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Photograph of Bernard S. Benson 1954.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Bernard S. Benson 1954.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rosemarie Beck in her studio (1960).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rosemarie Beck in her studio (1960).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Photo of Bernard Benson whilst living in France.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Bernard Benson whilst living in France.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nico Minardos 1970.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nico Minardos 1970.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Photograph of Bernard Benson of Benson-Lehner Corp.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photograph of Bernard Benson of Benson-Lehner Corp.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) 11:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Photograph of Bernard Benson (Benson-Lehner Corp)1955.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Photograph of Bernard Benson (Benson-Lehner Corp)1955.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 "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. Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Rinaldo Paluzzi Vertical Construction.1959.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rinaldo Paluzzi Vertical Construction.1959.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:CasaMagni.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CasaMagni.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.

Also:

• File:Joseph.Severn.2.jpg
• File:Trelawny.Trial.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:C.A.Brown.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:C.A.Brown.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sirswindon. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sirswindon. 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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karl Nolde (Kanol) (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Karl Nolde (Kanol) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TeaDrinker (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sirswindon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TeaDrinker (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Karl Nolde (Kanol)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Karl Nolde (Kanol) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://archive.org/stream/KarlNoldeKanol/Karl%20Nolde%20%28Kanol%29_djvu.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sirswindon. 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mike Marienthal born 6.19.1923.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mike Marienthal born 6.19.1923.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) 03:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)