User talk:Lawstubes

Welcome!

Hello, Lawstubes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Monkey head scratching and chin stroking.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Monkey head scratching and chin stroking.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Perpetual motion. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Joja lozzo 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review guidelines

Please review the following:

Thanks, Joja lozzo 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit warring article and the others as well. I will take any questions and this rest of discussion on the article talk page. Joja lozzo 04:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Perpetual motion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lawstubes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

first off, I have attempted to discuss my changes in talk pages, but a bias group patrols the page I wish to improve. More importantly evidence must be presented that proves that the alleged 'edit war' was indeed an edit war, and not an attempt to thwart vandalism In adding to the page, my additions were continuously removed. If editors would actutally EDIT my additions, perhaps it wouldn't be seen as vandalism. However, my additions were repeatedly destroyed. I do not wish to support my own edits, rather I support the correct procedure in dealing with new information. You can review the history for yourself. Basically, I am only trying to make it a point to describe what perpetual motion IS as a force of motion, because IT SIMPLY IS! Obviously, in the name of informing people, we must first describe this. Then move onto the implications of such a force in machinery. I'm not stupid, but for some reason... I think it was the founder of wikipedia that said "THE QUALITY IS LACKING". I also added ETYMOLOGY to the page, and this was also REPEATEDLY VANDALIZED! Thank you for your time, I appreciate your work here Lawstubes (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a clear example of an edit war, where multiple parties disagree about the content of an article. In such an edit war an editor should stop reverting and head to the talk page to discuss the issue at hand, and accept if his or her opinion does not receive majority support. In order to enforce discussion over reverting over and over in a tug-o-war fashion we have the 3RR rule which states that an editor may not revert the same article more then three times a way (Though slow edit wars can also be deal with trough the edit warring policy). The only time where an editor may revert more then three times is in cases where there is clear and undisputable vandalism - which isn't applicable in this case. This process is what we call Consensus building, and trough it we develop Wikipedia article's in an agreeable and coordinated fashion.

I know consensus building can be maddening and bureaucratic at times, but it is generally the best way to work in the long run. Since your edits were opposed entirely, i would advise taking it to the article talk page nonetheless. State what you wish to change and how, and ask for suggestions from other editors. Try to work out a middle ground to which most people agree, and insert the agreed section into the article. It takes longer then just adding it, but it prevents edit wars and gives the section some immunity due to it being agreed-upon content. Try to keep discussions on the point and try to cooperate with others as much as possible - and if any non-solvable problems arrive you can use WP:3O or nother form of dispute resolution in order to fix this. And don't dwell upon one subject - if people decide against a change it is better to move to another issue or article, rather then dwelling on it, or trying to enforce it.

Now, as for the unblock request - I am declining it without prejudice for future requests upon the basis that your request doesn't indicate that you understand the problem at hand. No matter how i look at it, this is simply an edit war, and not vandalism from another party. I fear that unblocking you right now might lead to the exact same situation, which would lead to another, and possibly longer block. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talk:sun disruption

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice

Please don't edit other editors comments on talkpages or edit your own comment after others have replied. There are very few circumstances in which this is appropriate and the sort of scale on which you have been doing it at Talk:Sun is not acceptable. It falsifies the exchanges that other editors have had and is intensely irritating to most editors. Neither is edit warring to keep your edited version in place acceptable. I note you have stopped now that the matter has been taken to ANI. Please do not resume this behaviour as it is disruptive. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (Add formal block notice).

Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Skepticism WikiProject asking for look at Theosophy entry

I don't understand what text I should type here in italics.

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh Scattering

Your recent edit to Talk:Rayleigh_scattering proposes no changes or new content for the article. Please restrict your comments to that purpose. Spiel496 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Stereochemestry.png

You uploaded or restored , File:Stereochemestry.png, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work:
please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers.

When you have copmpleted the above steps:

If the {{media by uploader}} tag is present please add, a |claimed=yes parameter to the tag.
If the {{img-unclaimed}} tag is present, please change it to {{img-claimed}}

to indicate that you've accepted the given the license shown, and updated the file description page appropriately.

If it's not entirely your own work, or the media is based on the work of others:
Please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers. You should also read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which details how to confirm any permissions you obtained for works by others that are still in copyright.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If media is not claimed, and there's no other obvious source or authorship information, the file may have to be removed for copyright reasons.

It's okay to remove or strike messages like this once the concerns have been addressed. :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]