User talk:VeryRarelyStable/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, VeryRarelyStable, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Hanover Hall interior East.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Hanover Hall interior East.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello VeryRarelyStable. Thanks for your contributions. Just a brief note to ask you to please consider using edit summaries. They are very helpful to other editors who watch the articles you're editing because they provide an explanation for your edits. Sometimes the reason behind an edit is obscure or ambiguous. Even in cases where the reason for a certain edit is reasonably clear, the presence of an edit summary saves time for those of us with unwieldy watchlists. Happy editing! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. I'm afraid I often find it difficult to articulate what changes I've made or why I feel they were worth making in less words than the edit itself took. VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tend to make lots of small edits in rapid sequence, because I spot one thing I think needs editing, edit it, spot another, edit that, etc. VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do that, too. If you're not making a substantive change but are trying to make it read better or fixing an obvious mistake, you can always just type "copyedit" (or "ce" for short). Sometimes I detail exactly what I'm doing, sometimes not; it depends on whether I think it will be readily apparent. One-word summaries such as "clarify" also work. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Hello, I saw you recently removed many important details from the plot section of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom citing long sentences. I would like to give you an editing suggestion. Try to be careful when adding or removing information from articles. Do not worry because Wikipedia can be a difficult place to find your way around. I joined Wikipedia over two years back but I still have some difficulty finding my way around the site and have made major mistakes until even a few months back. Nowadays when I edit an article, I look at other similar articles to keep to the standard format and try to be careful when adding or removing info. You can try using source editing if you have not done so yet because it gives you much finer control while editing. I hope my editing tips help you in the future and happy editing. Achat1999 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good will; I'm afraid I can't see what "important plot details" I removed, as I took great care not to excise anything important. I have put up a discussion of my edits and rationale for them on the Talk page. In particular, I think it is important to include a mention of the scene which multiple reviewers described as "poignant" (though only one actually complained about its absence from Wikipedia). —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You can find a detailed reply from me on the discussion you added to the Talk page of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Achat1999 (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verily

I wanted to get the first two Signs in there, but I couldn't remember what they were, and had no time to check. And your other corrections are, well, swell! -- Elphion (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. I tend to do edits on the talk pages because I want to see talk pages as the main source of edits on my edit count - I am afraid that I might suffer from Wikipedia: Editcountitis!Vorbee (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, VeryRarelyStable. 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]

Phoenix (mythology)

Hi VeryRarelyStable. Re your edit here, the reason "in Greek mythology" seemed redundant to me, is that the context "in Greek mythology" is already established in the first sentence. Regards, Paul August ☎ 13:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: it's established in the first sentence of the whole article – several sections prior – that the Phoenix is a creature from Greek mythology. We then read that it has Egyptian, Phoenician, and Roman connections as well (unsurprisingly, since all of those cultures were in long-term contact with the Greeks). So the "earliest depiction" might be Greek, but it might be Egyptian, Phoenician, or Roman. But in actual fact the word "Greek" here doesn't even apply to "the earliest depiction of the Phoenix"; it applies to "the personification of the Sun", which the depiction of the Phoenix is merely "like". There are therefore multiple removes between the first sentence of the article and the reference in question which make it non-redundant to specify that Helios was the Greek Sun. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your brilliant edit summary of this edit, building upon your brilliant user name! CCS81 (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tomahawk Beach has been accepted

Tomahawk Beach, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Allans Beach has been accepted

Allans Beach, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Smaills Beach has been accepted

Smaills Beach, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2019 (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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nude recreation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queenstown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

january 2020

You have declined to accept consensus either on the Heidegger talk page or at dispute resolution. You have declined invitations to raise an RfC. Further disruptive editing will result in a request to ANI for you to be topic banned. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: Well, I was hoping not to have to go there, but I hereby announce that I will be compiling a collection of the instances from the History page of (in particular) your and Freeknowledgecreator's inappropriate reversions and other efforts, across several years now, to enforce a pseudoconsensus. As for what I do with said compilation, that depends on how things go. For the benefit of future readers of this, I can recall querying the utility of an RfC, but not declining one. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the list to ANI if you want. From my stance it is very simple, you raise something, you edit war, you are forced to the talk page by a threat of 3rr referral, you do not get sufficient support for your view, you do not call an RfC, you carry on asserting a position. That means no one can move on. You couldn't even co-operate in a mediated environment so ANI is the next step if you continue -----Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You couldn't even co-operate in a mediated environment" is an odd way to express the fact that I offered a compromise, on the DRN discussion which I initiated, and none of your side would have a bar of it. By all means continue to post aggressively on my Talk page; we'll see what disinterested observers make of it. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a variation of your original proposal that you knew would be rejected. You did not address the evidence base of other third party sources. Asked by the mediator to accept the clear view of all editors bar the two of you or call an RfC you ignored the request and started a new thread. I'm trying to help you here by pointing out why you are having difficulties, no one wants editors topic banned. But if you want to interpret that as aggression fine. I've given you fair warning per good practice, now it's down to you -----Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnerkrigg Court

Two years later, but I began the cleanup process of the page. Since you brought it up, I thought I'd let you know. Not A Superhero (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naturism

To be honest I was unaware that I did that, it was either by accident or something far more sinister.......I would always prefer the British English spelling but I saw no difficulty in the edit!!!! Edmund Patrick – confer 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More naturism

Thanks for removing that image. It was repeatedly used by a series of socks a few years ago...sad to see that behavior return. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

Thank you for starting History of Phoenicia.

You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Phoenicia

You appear to be someone who may be interested in joining WikiProject Phoenicia. Please accept this friendly invitation from a member of the project.
I can't wait for us to work together! ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go!

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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Chair

Thanks -- that's what I intended. -- Elphion (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Reverts,

Hello VeryRarelyStable,

As I explained, my edits are according Wikipedia:External links,

The revert here [1] I think, kindly, was a mistake by you,

Works by an AUTHOR is appropriate links for the External Links section of his article, & The additional links provide the reader with significant unique content.

I here [2] explained that, and asked from you to do talk in talk-page of the article,

Very unfortunately you again did revert my edits: [3],

Pleas do not revert and first talk in talk-page, Sincerely Yours, Sir blue (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mistake. "Works by the author" – yes, your links pass that test. "The additional links provide the reader with significant unique content" – no, your links fail that test, because the works are already contained in an existing link in the same section as well as listed in the "Published books" section of that article. Linking them again adds no content at all.

Since you have also linked the same works, entirely inappropriately, at Phoenicia and Prehistoric Britain, it is clear you have an agenda to draw attention to them. That is why I put a link-spam warning on your Talk page.

If you want to use Wikipedia to promote an idea or a concept that you believe deserves more attention than it gets, there is only one legitimate way to do this: by writing about it from a neutral viewpoint and providing reliable sources. Laurence Waddell's works on race are not reliable sources of information about anything except Waddell's own racism.

—VeryRarelyStable 12:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VeryRarelyStable, I fully agree that this looks like promotion of a web site, ie spam. And of course Waddell is useless as a source for anything but himself. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for James Flynn (academic)

On 13 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article James Flynn (academic), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]