User talk:VenomousConcept

Welcome!

Hello, VenomousConcept, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Houston 500, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Houston 500"

A page you created, Houston 500, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nebukadnezza

A tag has been placed on Nebukadnezza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Damnas

A tag has been placed on Damnas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Sketchmoose (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Seed (band)

A tag has been placed on The Seed (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Patchy1Talk To Me! 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VeronikaZemanova.jpg

I have deleted File:VeronikaZemanova.jpg because it looks like it was copied from somewhere, but you have not given the source so that we can tell taht you actually took this picture (in 2005 or before). If you can let me know if it is a picture you took yourself it would be good to upload a higher resolution picture! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

In a recent edit to the page Friedrich Nietzsche, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zarathustra

I've responded on my talk page. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brenda Lynn

A tag has been placed on Brenda Lynn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

In a recent edit to the page Battle of the Bulge, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BC _{talk to me} 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

In a recent edit to the page Battle of the Bulge, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 13:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the page you just sent me - 'the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.' - therefore, as the first major contributor was British, the page should be written in British English. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read that paragraph. WP:RETAIN When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted.

The article has used American English for the last seven years, national ties are more American than British. (Hohum ^@) 13:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would 'national ties' be more American than British, when the USA is all the way across the Atlantic, whereas Britain is just across the channel from Germany? VenomousConcept (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American forces were far more involved than British ones. (Hohum ^@) 13:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so therefore the page on The American War of Independence should be written in British English, because there were more British troops involved than Americans. I'll go and change it now... VenomousConcept (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try and make that specious argument on the article talk page if you want. I don't hold much hope for your success. (Hohum ^@) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's not my argument, it's yours. I was just pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument. Personally I think how many troops of different nationalities were involved is utterly irrelevant. VenomousConcept (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your incorrect interpretation of wikipedia practices. (Hohum ^@) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right. It just means that every article ends up being written in so-called 'American English' or bad English, just because more Americans use wikipedia, even when the article has fuck all to do with America. VenomousConcept (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You will find that every article about a subject within the UK is in British English, as is every article about a battle where the UK played the main role. Many others are as well, for various reasons. Please read WP:ENGVAR until you understand that wikipedia doesn't consider American English as bad. (Hohum ^@) 13:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Sarah Whitehead

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sarah Whitehead, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.london-ghost-tour.com/bank_of_england.htm. As a copyright violation, Sarah Whitehead appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sarah Whitehead has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Sarah Whitehead and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Sarah Whitehead with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Sarah Whitehead.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Syrthiss (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have I got time to rewrite it? VenomousConcept (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can either pare it down to bare minimum and leave it in articlespace, or preferably I could move it to your userspace and let you work on it there. Let me know which you'd prefer. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you move it to my userspace. I don't create articles very often, cos the ones I do get deleted within a fraction of a second. I was being lazy copying from the website though. VenomousConcept (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:VenomousConcept/Sarah Whitehead is its new location. Yep, I start pages only rarely because I don't want to do the initial push to avoid deletion. If I can be of more help, let me know. Syrthiss (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Carrie (1976 film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what source exactly would you like me to cite for that? If you've seen the film it's quite obvious that the mother is killed in the position of a crucifix. VenomousConcept (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're asking, I'd like a source stating that the association you're drawing is intentional rather than coincidental. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to find a source, but most websites just have plot summaries, they don't go into that much detail. In the film there is a very clear juxtaposition of the crucifix that Carrie prays to in her cupboard, and the position in which her mother is killed. I didn't think you had to provide sources for things that are obvious.VenomousConcept (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that it's not obvious to someone who hasn't seen the film, and additionally we need evidence that the association is intentional...we can't just assume that no matter how obvious we think it is. The source looks good; I've tweaked the text of the Plot a little bit to clarify the association. I think it might be better if this was moved out of the Plot section, as it's not really essential to understanding the storyline, and into the Production section. It would be great if there was a source that was actually associated with the film instead of a third-party making the connection, but something's better than nothing. Thanks for your work on this! Doniago (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

In a recent edit to the page Diarrhea, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From your talk page and your edits, this seems to be an on-going issue. Is there a particular reason you are choosing to ignore the established consensus on this issue? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word is spelt incorrectly. How am I supposed to know that some particular misspelling is used by a bunch of retards in another part of the world who are incapable of using the English language correctly? VenomousConcept (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words were spelled correctly. Harbor no doubts: however you choose to color it, you were changing varieties of English. Before "correcting" spelling any futher, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with "retarded so-called 'American English'". ~~Whether you have made the same mistakes repeatedly or have intentionally ignored the established consensus is immaterial.~~ If you continue this, you will be blocked. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this is no accident. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you're suggesting I sit down and learn all the misspellings, mispronunciations and misuses of grammar that are employed in another country just to keep you happy? I think not. VenomousConcept (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered with you before. Continue and you will be blocked from editing. (Your misunderstanding of the divisions between different varieties of English, though amusing, is irrelevant.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stygiophobia

The article Stygiophobia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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.

Your edits over the last day or two have been almost entirely disruptive. PRODding articles started by an editor with whom you are having a dispute is the least of it. For what it's worth, I'm English and my toes curl when I see some US spellings too - but we lost our Empire a while back and with it the right to dictate to the rest of the world. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be pointed out that your abusive insults are not acceptable either - if you repeat them after your block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately before your block, you went on quite a tear. In those few instances where you gave a meaningful explanation, I am approaching the edit as a valid edit. In those cases where you merely reverted my edits without explanation, my original reasoning stands and I am reverting those edits as vandalism. In some instances, other editors have stapped in and I'm letting them handle the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you are blocked, please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:ENGVAR. They should help you when you return to editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 18 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unfair VenomousConcept (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block has expired. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2012 (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.

Ok, in response, my edits to correct spelling and grammar are almost always done on pages relating to Britain, or that were originally written by a British author. For example, SummerPHD reverted my edits to a page on Alfred Hitchcock who was obviously British. Also, the Battle of the Bulge fiasco above, the page was originally written in correct English. On that point I'd like to say that Wikipedia rules are unclear and ambiguous. Especially the bit about 'once the page has evolved to a certain point where it's clear which variety of English is being used' - I mean how is anyone supposed to determine when that is exactly? In my opinion, the standard that the original author used, should always be used, as it's their article. Secondly, my 'abusive insults' only happen after I get tired of having the same fucking argument all the time. I was perfectly civil to begin with, and I don't see how it's possible to make 'personal attacks' on wikipedia when everyone is anonymous and I don't know them from Adam. Thirdly, my 'quite a tear' that SummerPHD refers to was only in response to them reverting my edits. Fourthly, my addition of proposal for deletion to those pages was valid in my opinion, I don't see why a page on some unknown swing band in America is any more worthy of inclusion than my page on stygiophobia, which SummerPHD purely added a proposal for deletion to because they were having a dispute with me. VenomousConcept (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the blocking admin, I'm not going to act on this appeal (although for me it is a clear deny appeal decision.) There is no justification for the abusive attacks on another editor, and if you don't thing personal attacks are possible on Wikipedia then you haven't been paying attention. I will be paying attention to your edits in the near future and rest assured that I will block for a longer period if there is any further poor behaviour from you. Shape up or ship out. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason for the block was so-called 'disruptive editing'. My 'abusive attacks' were only in response to SummerPHD's repeated revisions of perfectly valid edits, and the addition of a proposal for deletion to a perfectly valid article. Those actions in themselves are malicious. VenomousConcept (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were changing various articles from American English to British English with no explanation other than "spelling" (other than the insistences on "proper English" noted in the AN/I discussion noted above). As you have been warned numerous times about this in the past, this is clearly disruptive. My nomination was based on good faith reasoning explained in the prod and the AfD. Your prods gave no explanations whatsoever for recommending the deletion of well sourced articles. At the end of the day, any well-sourced topic is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article provided a reference. Let's take a look at your article Greater Kensington (string band). Only one reference (like my article) and filled with 'citation needed'. So, if you're trying to claim that your articles are more well-sourced than mine, you are wrong. Personally I never normally propose any articles for deletion because I think the meaning of the word 'encyclopaedia' is that it has everything in it. Proposing articles for deletion only discourages people from writing articles in the first place, and so is detrimental to the website. VenomousConcept (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short article you created (not "your" article) did not strike me as encyclopedic. I was unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Discussion on what to do with that article is on-going (it currently looks like it will be moved to a new title (others were similarly unable to find coverage under the title you used) and expanded). Greater Kensington (string band), which I created, was expanded by several other editors and I added most of the "citation needed" tags. At that point, I basically left the article, in the apparently optimistic hope that those who had added much of that material (probably members of the band, other Mummers, etc.) would add some sources. As that has obviously not happened, I've just given it a bit of attention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not intend to include "everything". In addition to non-notable subjects (I once initiated a deletion of an article on someone's favorite elementary school gym teacher), there are several other categories of things we generally do not include (see WP:NOT). One of these is dictionary definitions, which we typically pass along to our sister project, Wikitionary. The Wikipedia community apparently does not hold your view that "proposing articles for deletion...is detrimental to the website" as we have created numerous ways to do exactly that. I proposed deletion for Stygiophobia in a good faith effort to improve the project by removing material that I felt did not match our goals. I am sorry that you feel this was a personal attack on you or otherwise disagree with my actions. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stygiophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stygiophobia 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/Stygiophobia 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between that article and your article on 'Somatosensory amplification' - it explains what the word means. VenomousConcept (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From an outside observer:

Somatosensory amplification is sourced.
It is structured like an article which explains the topic as more than just a definition.
It establishes notability under WP:GNG.
Stygiophobia is unsourced.
It is written as a run-on sentence providing only a definition and loose etymology.
It makes no attempt to establish the phobia as notable.
As it stands, Stygiophobia is more suited to Wiktionary than Wikipedia.
The statement you made in the AfD ascribing bad faith on SummerPhD's was uncalled for. Yes the timing of the PROD and AfD are not good, but the page fits the basic criteria for both. Attacking the nom is not a good way to defend your work. Comments within the AfD from Uncle G and Dennis Brown are a more productive way of defending it.

- J Greb (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Whitehead

Recently, you moved this page from your user space to Wikipedia:VenomousConcept/Sarah Whitehead. I assume you wanted it moved to article space, so I have completed that process. Favonian (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, I have moved the page back to your user space. It's still way too close to this website. Please see WP:PARAPHRASE. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yeah I was going to blank it and make it into a stub for others to improve. For future reference, how do I move it into 'article space'? VenomousConcept (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make certain that you've chosen "(Article)" from the drop-down menu and the rest of the title is unqualified, i.e. no colon. Looks like you managed to move the article this time, but with two unintended stops on the way. I have removed the debris. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever

I get it. You think Americans are, essentially, dumb.[1][2] Also, I'm guessing that's a "no" on the working together on a small improvement to Wikipedia that I assumed would be in line with your thinking (re aluminum/aluminium). Whatever. Hopefully you can understand that personal attacks are considered disruptive and will not be tolerated. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't intended as a personal attack, I don't even know who you are. I was just making my view clear as to which translation should be used. I left the page as you edited it, I thought that would make you happy. Nevermind.VenomousConcept (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you had used simpler words and avoided complex ideas (like irony) I might have understood. Like I said: Whatever. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piraiba

I've converted this stub into a redirect to Brachyplatystoma, which has much more information about the species than the couple of sentences which you copied from it to create the stub. Please don't copy text from Wikipedia articles, and don't use Wikipedia as your source. OK, you cited another source, but the text was lifted straight from the other article. That was why it included "B. filamentosum" without expanding the "B.", which was singularly unhelpful in even a stub article. Please take more care to use reliable non-Wikipedia sources, and write in your own words, and look at each article you create to see whether it makes sense to someone reading it for the first time. Thanks. PamD 16:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word piraiba already redirects to Brachyplatystoma. I just thought the fish itself should have it's own page, instead of a page that has information about the whole genus. I started it as a stub for others to expand. I mean there are pages on man, monkeys, cows, dogs arent there? We aren't all lumped under 'mammals'.VenomousConcept (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, VenomousConcept. You have new messages at Talk:Dublin.
Message added 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mo ainm~Talk 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hash symbol

Per your comment here, it's normally found on the 3 key on qwerty keyboards. Dismas|^(talk) 20:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, I'm using a Mac keyboard, and it doesn't seem to have a hash symbol anywhere. (I normally use a regular laptop.) VenomousConcept (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On my Mac's keyboard, it's on the "\" key, if that helps. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Scott

Just wondering if you were aware of the edit war that led to the "from England" bit being added. If not, you may want to check the talk page archives. British people can be from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. Not unnecessary to specify, especially in the situation we had. I hope I'm wrong and the issue has died down, but I think we'll be seeing "English" and "British" switched back and forth repeatedly again. I'll assume I'm wrong and leave your edit, but if that crap starts up, the compromise goes back. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, strange. No, I wasn't aware of the edit war, just saw something that looked silly and changed it. You don't see that on the page of every British person. The stupid thing is that the lead should sum up the main points about him - surely him being British or English is not the most important thing to mention, more about his film directing should be there. VenomousConcept (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not perfect. Compromises rarely are. Maybe we won't need it, anymore. I'm not sure what more we can summarize about his directing without the lead getting too large, but if you have an idea, feel free. According to WP:OPENPARA, his British citizenship is important, though not the most important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:07, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Busted (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Southern limit of the distribution of the green anaconda

Good evening:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:

http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Empire State (1987 film)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Empire State (1987 film), VenomousConcept!

Wikipedia editor Theodore! just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I would encourage expanding the article, or at least adding more sources. The topic seems notable, but citations to more reliable sources will help.

To reply, leave a comment on Theodore!'s talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Emma Healey

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 Emma Healey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dengero (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Emma Healey

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 Emma Healey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2014 (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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, VenomousConcept. 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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Holly Macve

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 Holly Macve requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Smjg (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Emily Beecham.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Emily Beecham.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 13:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what do I have to do for the picture to be used? Do I have to have the right licence? Or even then would it be reverted to a 'free' picture? VenomousConcept (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Emily Beecham. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:VenomousConcept reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S.O.B. (band)

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 S.O.B. (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, VenomousConcept. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, VenomousConcept. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Uri gagarin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Uri gagarin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Uri gagarin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Scour(band)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Scour(band) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Scour(band) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]