User talk:PtolemyA

Notability of Mark versallion

A tag has been placed on Mark versallion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Stockgrove Country Park lake.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stockgrove Country Park lake.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, I'm Bob Re-born. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Redruth, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bob Re-born (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits

Hello, PtolemyA. Please consider these editing suggestions:

When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.

Regards, Eric ^talk 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Versallion

Hello, PtolemyA. No doubt you have noticed that it has been suggested that you are closely connected with Mark Versallion. This is only speculation, and you do not need to say whether you are connected with him or not. All the same, I think it will help to calm nerves on that talk page if you can stand back from the article now! Greetings, Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this "user" is back again, making changes to the page again, and referencing Mr Versallion's own website as a source again. I'll try to correct the more gross misuse (but anything "real" that PtolemyA adds, I'm happy to leave in situ).Plingsby (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2016 (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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PtolemyA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hi PtolemyA! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mark Versallion that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Versallion, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]