User talk:Seanwal111111

Thanks for uploading Image:ParvizYahaghi.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ernest.walton.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to File:Ernest.walton.jpg. Thank you.

Just read the article about Ernest Walton and I noticed a strange anomlie that you introduced in the "Later Years" section. The text now indicates that he returned to Belfast after his retirement and eventually died there. Maybe he did return to Belfast breifly after his retirement but I remember him attending church every Sunday in Methodist Centenary, Leeson Park, Dublin until he died in 1995; in fact he sat in the same pew as my family! Could you please verify your source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.39.167 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The president of Republic of Ireland, Mary Robinson, paid an official visit to Walton in 1994 at the Belfast nursing home he was living in (http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/history/walton/walton_biography.php). That establishes that Walton had moved north by that year. Needless to say, all the newspaper obituaries in 1995 say he died in Belfast. The Walton bio written by Brian Cathcart does not mention what year Walton moved north, unfortunately. I read -- somewhere -- that he moved to the Greater Belfast area soon after his 1974 retirement and long before going into a nursing home. Since you're doubting that, I'll look at the Walton bio by Vincent McBrierty which I expect gives the year, and I'll use that as the source once I've seen it. In the meantime, don't let me stop you from looking it up yourself.

Reply: Thanks for your interest, I'll try to verify my facts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.39.167 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff you are trying to insert into the Ireland article. But without giving the reasons for the difference (Protestant resources and education v Catholic poverty and starvation) it is very misleading. Today the picture is rather different isn't it? The "Catholic" state is one of the most prosperous on Earth near the top of every positive index available while the "Protestant" one is a basket case living on subsidies. (Of course there are reasons for that too, not implying anything negative about being Protestant, I'm 25% myself). So maybe we should steer away from introducing sectarian comparisons? (Sarah777 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for excising the bias from the section you added on home schooling in Germany. Please see my comments on the talk page about additional problems (all minor) that I see with the section. -Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments you left on my page. It certainly will be interesting to see how Wikipedia develops over the next few years. - I did some work on the Adair Crawford article and will see if I have anything to add to the one about Ernest Walton, mentioned above. - Astrochemist (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:KathleenLonsdale.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to spend an awful amount of effort removing mentions of Irish birth and replacing them with either Anglo-Irish, or British; and removing any Irish flags you see. What's all that about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.150.171 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you're wrong that details are not valuable even if most readers can't understand them. Most readers can't understand all of General Relativity, but that doesn't make the details not valuable. Second, if the details can't be understood, explain them, don't delete them. Further discussion at Talk:George Salmon. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hermann Knoblauch, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Karl-Hermann Knoblauch. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Kayhan.Kalhor.jpeg, 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.stanford.edu/group/psa/events/1999-00/kalhor/images/kalhor-home.jpeg on http://www.stanford.edu/group/psa/events/1999-00/kalhor/artists.utf8.html. As a copyright violation, File:Kayhan.Kalhor.jpeg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Kayhan.Kalhor.jpeg 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 GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Kayhan.Kalhor.jpeg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Kayhan.Kalhor.jpeg 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-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Kayhan.Kalhor.jpeg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure how this can be considered "spam". That is one of the edits I changed. Listing a nationality of a person is definitely not "spam" by any means. This is another edit I changed and again it's not spam. And honestly, whether the user is autoconfirmed or not means absolutely nothing in terms of general editing. That only matters if the person wants to move a page or patrol a page or whatever. Both of the edits you are referring to are legitimate edits. The fact that the users do not have registered accounts or are not autoconfirmed does not make them "spam". As for your second point, I think that nationality is very important when it comes to articles about people. You are entitled to your opinion about nobody wanting to follow such links but they are in just about every article about a person, living or dead. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't see the cat change. Having said that, just change the cat back then instead of reverting the entire edit. As for the nationality thing, again, you are entitled to your opinion but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes the date is no longer linked but it's still there in the infobox and in the opening line of the article. You completely removed any mention of the nationality. The fact that you think its useless information is your opinion but it's not a guideline or policy on Wikipedia. Yes we no longer link the date (The archives on here have major discussions on the topic) but this was changed per consensus and not just based on one user's opinion. Do I think the nationality should always be mentioned? I think it's often useful as I think nationality tells you more about a subject than just the date of birth does. Nothing in the date of birth articles pertain to the subject but the nationality articles might. But in any case, I'm here to uphold consensus first and foremost and the consensus is to link them. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of the equipartion theory of k/2 thermal energy per atom (or R/2 per mole atoms) into every quantum mode of heat storage available at that temp, ala Boltzmann, is a rather arcane thing. I think you're asking for something like that. You want to take a crack at it? I have the feeling there must be some statistical thermo wikis we can just use as {{main}} articles here. SBHarris 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seanwal, I tried to figure out where the text on John Tyndall's year of membership in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had went after I added it last year, since the category was still there. (I'm usually of the opinion that categories used should be covered by article text; for example, you can't conveniently add "citation needed" templates to categories.) I see that you removed it with this edit, which you marked as aminor edit. It was a significant time ago, but please be aware that removing information from an article, even if you question the relevance or sourcing of it, never can be characterised as a minor edit. Just in case you still use the "minor" box in the same way... By the way, the reason why I checked was because I had gotten to Tyndall's year, 1870, in a list of all members with number that I'm very slowly compiling. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've taught me that I've been using the minor edit flag in the wrong way. Thank you. Incidentally, an honorary membership in a foreign academy of sciences is too trivial to be worth mentioning in most 19th century science biographies. Seanwal111111 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for keeping a watchful eye on the article on John Tyndall and rightly correcting my mistake. However, the sentence starts "In 1864 the Pope declared..." and only later continues "and in 1888 he declared...". So, reverting my edit was, at least partly, correct. Yet, shouldn't we make clear that it is not the same Pope declaring something in 64 and 88 but indeed two different ones? Shouldn't we furthermore indicate which ones those were? Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have tagged your addition of 'ammonia' to List of Arabic loanwords in English as {{dubious}}, as neither the OED nor the articles Jābir ibn Hayyān or sal ammoniac give any support to your claim. (I didn't delete it outright as your edit history suggests that you are a responsible editor). Do you have a reference? --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, my thanks for your diligent policing of the Arabic loanwords page. My source is the Wikipedia article Ammonia#History and the references given there. I believe it's established that the word came into European alchemy from the Arab alchemists, specifically Jabir, whose use of sal ammoniac is detailed at ref. The same word was in use by the ancient Romans alright, but it's unclear what exactly the ancient Roman word referred to. The online etymology dictionary says: Ammonia was coined in 1782 by Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman for gas obtained from sal ammoniac, salt deposits containing ammonium chloride found near temple of Jupiter Ammon (from Egyptian God Amun) in Libya, from Gk. ammoniakon "belonging to Ammon." The shrine was already ancient in Augustus' day, and the salts were prepared "from the sands where the camels waited while their masters prayed for good omens".ref To be clear, Torbern Bergman didn't take the word from a Roman source -- sal ammoniac had been in use in Europe for centuries at the time. And it's not established that the Roman meaning was "salt deposits containing ammonium chloride", the Arabic meaning. To repeat myself, the European sal ammoniac came from Arabic, while the old Roman sal ammoniac name is not necessarily referring to the same entity, and therefore we can say that sal ammoniac is of Arabic origin, and hence ammonia is too. Seanwal111111 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm being thick, but I have not found anywhere in any of those references which state (or even suggest) that the word came from Arabic. Certainly the substance was well-known to Islamic chemists, including Jabir, but nowhere have I found a suggestion that he called it anything like 'ammoniac': http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2072.htm gives the word 'nushadir' for it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being thick, and you make a fair point. But I think I found a reference at Archive.org. Let's finish the discussion at the talk page for List of Arabic loanwords in English.

CleanupBarnstar.PNG

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For clearing out the Augean stables! ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should carefully study all the discussions on that article's talk page, the issue of Khwārizmī's origin has been extensively discussed, and even the opinion of some major specialists/academics was canvased on the issue. So the current version of the article is based on an existing WP:consensus that his origin was Persian. Therefore, you can not make remove that or make any other controversial changes to the article, without a clear WP:consensus. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1].

Do not remove sources and see pg 6. Yes they were Bhuddist but of Persian origin. Bhuddism was widespread in the Eastern parts of the Sassanid empire. More sources were added as well. --Hichimichi (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated WP:3RR in Barmakids. Violating 3RR can result in being blocked from editing in Wikipedia. Alefbe (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Islam: "The 'Abbasid dynasty ruled with the help of the Barmakids, a prominent Persian family from Balkh who, before their conversion, had been priests in the Bhuddist monestary of Nawbahar "

So adding the term " Other sources say that despite their Buddhism " is WP:OR and WP:synthesis, specially when it is the same source. As per the lead, yes their origin is not controversial so it is in the lead and the sources on their Bhuddism was not removed. Both their Bhuddism and Persian background is mentioned in the article. Do not make it seem they contradict each other when they do not as it is known that Bhuddism was followed by many Iranians. --Hichimichi (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for my inappropriate title! I am not very knowledgeble in that area. Just wondering, is Turkish music considered Arabic, or are they completely different?--Edward130603 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for removing that image that obviously was a bad illustration for the foundation of Kells in early ninth century. Regarding you comment in the edit summary about moving the church-reform section into a separate article that it something I have considered, that section became longer than I intended and I'm not really done yet... I see the whole article as a work in progress though, and only when there's some content to all the suggested sections will it be possible to find a proper "balance". Your input on this and other aspects of the article will be much appreciated. I hope you don't mind that I remove the "with an emphasis on power contests"-addition from the lead, that's not what this article should aim to present, and if it currently does that changes will have to be made. The article should probably, at some point, be moved to "History of Ireland 800-1169" however. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring my edit at List of Arabic loanwords in English. I should probably know better and not have edited immediately after the sequence you reverted, as it was plain that they might be problematic. And many thanks for keeping an eye on that page.

All the best. —Syncategoremata (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sean, I am finding the figures and layout of the NI Life & Times Survey a bit confusing so I did a bit of digging. Tell me if this makes sense. 2008 figures are out and there is two question relating to being British etc. Q1: Do you think of yourself as British/Irish/Ulster/Northern Irish? Answer: British 37%, Irish 26%, NI 29 .... See here [2] Q2: How important it is to you that you are British/Irish/etc? Answer: Bit more complex so see here [3]

I think that the figure that should be quoted in the article (if any) is 37%. I cannot find anything in the latest data to say that 78% or anything near that say they are British, but I could be wrong and that is why I brought it here rather than getting into an edit war.Bjmullan (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to discuss this would be on that article's discussion page, not my personal page. So let's take it over there.Seanwal111111 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Isles naming dispute. 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. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very good edit. Unfortunately the misconception that people actually measured the weight of diamonds using carob seeds, silly though it is, is out there in "reliable" sources, and I am not aware of any source the clearly states that that makes no sense. Without a source the nonsense is very likely to creep in again, and if someone exists it there isn't much we can do about it. Do you have a source, perhaps? Hans Adler 08:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source was the book I cited in the edit. It shows that the Arabic qirat weight had several definitions unconnected to the carob seed. A quick way to see the relevant page of the book is to go to this page at Archive.org, click on lefthandside "Read Online", and then in the upperright corner enter CARAT in the search box. Before I edited the Wikipedia article it was already saying "different countries each had their own carat unit, all roughly equivalent to the mass of a carob seed." Rough equivalence amounts to a contradiction of the sentence I deleted, "carob seeds were used as weights" Seanwal111111 (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo any of my contributions to Osborne Reynolds again and again. They are facts and should not be left out. If you like, you can help me with the references, as I do not know how to put them in the right format. Eltonjohn007 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Seanwal. Again, you have put a lot of effort into improving this article. However, there are a couple of respects in which I think you are going a bit too far, and are at risk of vitiating your fine work. One is that sometimes you are going into too much detail which is not relevant to the article. I have just excised part of your paragraph about natron etc: the strange situation with the chemical symbol not matching the English name is interesting in its way, but nothing whatever to do with the Arabic origin of the word.

There are also a few places where you are not writing in a suitably encyclopaedic style: I have expanded an "it's" to "it is", added a verb to a note or two, and replaced the bizarre "crossref" by "compare". But I'm sure there are other places where the tone is not right. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the following rather bizarre sentence: "Some of the names classed as ancient Mesopotamian would've been in ancient Arabic too, while others would've been transmitted to Arabic at various later times through Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian and perhaps some through Greek.". Apart from the fact that "would've" is too colloquial for a encyclopaedia, I am not sure what you mean by it. "Would've" (or "would have") strikes me as a weasel word: either your source is claiming that some of them were in Ancient Arabic, or it is suggesting it without asserting it, or it is saying nothing on this and the supposition is yours. Please clarify. Furthermore, I'm not clear what the claim itself means, because of the vagueness of "ancient Arabic". If you mean "the Arabic contemporaneous with the Mesopotamian source" (presumably either Sumerian or Akkadian), I'm dubious that we know anything about Arabic of that date. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on the Discussion Page of List of Arabic loanwords in English, not here on my personal page. But anyway, the cited source is here @ Google Books and on the central lefthand side search box on that page you can type in "ancient Mesopotamian" and it'll give you a list of the ten pages in the book where that phrase occurs. The page I'm drawing the info from is page 63 where it says "31% of the names came from ancient Mesopotamian terms. This was often through the intermediaries of Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian, and perhaps Greek." Interpret: 31% of the medieval Arabic names have cognates in ancient Mesopotamian names. Mesopotamanian cognates can enter Arabic in Islamic times through Syriac, Persian and Greek; and in pre-Islamic times through Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, and others; or in quite ancient pre-Islamic times through those and other languages. That is, connecting an Arabic word with a Mesopotamian cognate doesn't give him a basis for saying how the word entered Arabic. So "would've" and vagueness is appropriate.

In the context, "ancient Arabic" means all pre-Islamic Arabic, going back an unspecified long time into the past. Arabic is a Semitic language as you know, and so are the ancient Mesopotamian languages Akkadian and Aramaic. And ancient Arabia was physically not very far away from Mesopotamia. So, when Martin Levey find cognates for a bunch of Islamic Arabic words in ancient Mesopotamian languages, some of the words would've almost surely been in ancient Arabic too. But we don't know which ones since we don't have ancient Arabic texts. Seanwal111111 (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about where this discussion should be, but now it's here let's continue it here. My thought processes were something along the lines of "he's doing lots of good work on the page, so lets bring this up a little less publically".

Anyway, the problem is in your "interpret". You've no business interpreting in a WP article: that is OR. The source didn't say anything about Ancient Arabic. It does say that some of them came through Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian, and perhaps Greek, but it doesn't say anything at all about the remainder: you have made that up. It may be right, but your source doesn't say so - hence your weasel words 'would have'. Since "Ancient Arabic" is not a term of art, you shouldn't be using it without defining it; but it doesn't belong in the article anyway for the reason I've given. I know your explanations above aren't part of the article, but I'm a bit bemused what you think is the relevance of Arabic's being Semitic like Akkadian and Aramaic (but not incidentally Sumerian): we're talking about loan-words so linguistic cognacy is irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about loan-words here. Martin Levey is not talking about loan-words.

In my "interpret", I just want to understand what Martin Levey is trying to say. He leaves it pretty vague himself. It is necessary to understand what he intends to say. That is not OR.

I said already that "ancient Arabic" is synonymous with "pre-Islamic Arabic". But the latter is the phrase used by Martin Levey, so perhaps it would've been better to use that term.

On the matter of substance, I sincerely don't understand what you're on about. I suspect you're misunderstanding something. Nevertheless, please go ahead and change the paragraph as you think fit. Then I'll take a look at it.

As for the matter of "would've" versus "would have", you prefer the latter, I prefer the former. But I don't care enough about it to want to get into a conversation about defending it. Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Fine, you said: "The source [Martin Levey's book] didn't say anything about Ancient Arabic. It does say that some of them [medieval Arabic botanical names] came through Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian, and perhaps Greek, but it doesn't say anything at all about the remainder: you have made that up." You haven't looked at the source, I believe. Here are a few quotes for you from it:

Page 64: "The Arab transmission of ideas and technology in ancient and medieval times is difficult to study. However, ancient Semetic scientific material, although not often found in literary works, did find its way to the Arabs by means of oral transmission, largely through commercial intercourse and the apprenticeship system. Partial evidence for this may be gleaned from the terminological richness of pre-Islamic oral literature.... ... [medieval] Arabic as, myrtle, from Akkadian asu; [medieval] Arabic baṣal, onion, from Akkadian biṣru; [medieval] Arabic turmus, lupine, from Sumerian TAR.MUS...." Same book page 57: "A large number of Akkadian botanical names were used by the Muslims. A few of these include the Arabic shibit or shibbat, "dill", cognate to the Akkadian shibittu; Arabic ghar, "sweet bay", related to Akkadian eru; Arabic hummas, "chickpea", to Akkadian humushu"; and Arabic athl, "tamarisk gall", to Akkadian ashlu". This oral literature, whose importance is not as yet realized because of a general neglect by historians of the science of philology, was of great importance in botany...." Same book page 60: "The Arabic word for mustard, khardal, is cognate to the Akkadian khaldappanu or khardinnu. The Sumerian is KHAR.KHAR. In Akkadian, mustard is also... ar sanapu.... The Arabic cognate is sinf...." Seanwal111111 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NellyInFawazeerDunyaLaeba(1995).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion here Mo ainm~Talk 15:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a requirement that the bibliography may contain only works that are cited in the text. At least one of the books was used as a reference for article writing, although it is not cited sentence-by-sentence - because I used it as a source for the article long before WP even had a way to do citations! Stan (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your crusade for removing the traces of the word persian from different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.89.169 (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't remove references without providing a valid reason why that reference is false. The reference that you removed from chlorine clearly states: "Watery hydrochloric acid was probably known by Geber, the Arabian chemist, in the 8th century" so your removal of this reference is unjustified. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the compliments.--Knight1993 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at what links here for Mangesia, everything I see is in the geographic sense. I don't want to edit war, but when virtually every, if not every, link is intended for the geographic page, why shunt them to the disambig? --JaGa^talk 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disambiguated 60 pages of them individually this morning. It took an hour. I think the remainder should be done too, and when done that'll solve the problem. The word magnesia in English usually means the chemical, not the province in Greece. That's why when the user enters "magnesia" in the Wikipedia search box he should at least be brought to the disambiguation page, and should not be brought to the province in Greece.

Any further discussion should be on the magnesia page, not on my personal page. Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fix any more of the 100+ links that now go to a disambiguation page after your changes, this tool makes the job much easier. --JaGa^talk 03:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the claim that smoking quadrupes the risk of RA, providing a reference in the edit summary. This happens to be a good reference that meets WP:MEDRS. Could you explain why you removed the sentence rather that update it with the correct figures and adding the correct citation? JFW | T@lk 14:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was too difficult to produce a concise summary that data, i.e. the data at http://ard.bmj.com/content/69/01/70.abstract. I've looked at your effor at summarizing it and I think you've done a lousy job. Here's why. The sentence I deleted was [4]"It is 4 times more common in smokers than non-smokers." The meta-analyis says that male current smokers with rheumatoid factor-positive (RF+) RA have an Odds Ratio of 3.91 vis-a-vis the same class of persons who are never-smokers. Therefore in round numbers that is indeed "four times more common in smokers than non-smokers". But only for that restricted class! You have replaced that with "It is up to three times more common in smokers than non-smokers". Clearly, you should have said "up to four" not "up to three". Your next error is that you say "It is up to three times more common in smokers than non-smokers, particularly in ... heavy smokers". Whereas the thing you're summarizing doesn't have data for heavy smokers. It has data for "20 or more pack-years of smoking", which is not the same thing as heavy smokers. But there are difficulties with this data that are harder to handle. The meta-analysis abstract says "For women, summary Odds Ratio for ever, current and past smokers [versus never smokers] were 1.27, 1.31 and 1.22, respectively." That means that if you just tried one cigarette in your whole life you've got essentially no difference in Odds Ratio from a real current smoker and a real past (quit) smoker. And all the other data break-downs similarly show that individuals who never ever even once tried a cigarette are in a different risk class from the other three classes, with little difference among the other three classes -- e.g.: "For male rheumatoid factor-positive (RF+) RA, summary Odds Ratio for ever, current and past smokers [versus never smokers] were 3.02, 3.91 and 2.46, respectively." Another complication in summarizing this data is that regardless of smoking status women are about four times more at risk than men to get the disease, yet women current-smokers are at half the risk of men current-smokers vis-a-vis never-smokers of the same sex. Another complication: What percentage of the smoking population is "rheumatoid factor-positive (RF+) RA"? One can't decently summarize the risk associated with smoking without knowing that. Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of words is absolutely charming ("you've done a lousy job" etc, please see WP:NPA). How about you follow your own advice and justify your removal (rather than rephrasing) of the data on the talkpage? JFW | T@lk 10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Seanwal, your recent edit on the article of Abū al-Wafā' Būzjānī in which you deleted his ethnicity could be considered as an example of Vandalism. Try you avoid such editing, else you'll encounter problem by admins in future. Thanks for your understanding.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aliwiki, that warning, and your revert, are quite out of proportion. Seanwal added referenced material to the article, and removed one piece of information which you regard as important - perhaps intentionally, perhaps by mistake. Rather than reverting his edit, you could have restored that little bit of information (as I have done). Your comparison of Seanwal's constructive edit to Vandalism is grotesque. Please do not throw such accusations about. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Colin Fine. Ali Wiki has a history of being an agressive Persian flagwaver at Wikipedia. Any further discussion of this matter should be at the talk page for Abū al-Wafā' Būzjānī.Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User ColinFine. Thanks for your comment. The point is that I know user seanwal since 2010 and his long history in removing Persian ethnicity of prominent scientists. I waited enough time for him to change his behaviour, but it seems he hasn't. Hope it changes in future.

Userseanwal, mutilating content of articles is aggressive, not keeping eye on them. That you remove ethnicity of scientist does ABSOLUTELY make no sense in wikipedia, and till you practice such editing, you will be reverted and reverted. Suppose you replaced Arab instead of Persian for ethnicity of a scientist. So what! Not only this doesn't change anything, but damaging the credibility of Wikipedia.Thanks for your understanding again.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something more, if my warning bothers you,I am apologizing. Wassalam alaikum.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TyndallsElectrostaticMachine manufacturedby CurtWMeyerNewYork1886.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the links you deleted on Edward William Lane are fully available in google ebook version, when you look at the title page it says "free", in the light blue box on the right side. It even allows for plain text viewing and PDF downloading in the read mode.

and also its not nesecary to download the google books, it can just be read straight off , you can scroll from the first page to the last page without anything being hidden, the entire text is there with no downloading required.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since they are indeed fully available versions of the lexicon, and don't require downloading, I have restored them. If there is some other problem with them being there feel free to delete and discuss.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:UltramicroscopeSchematicDrawing.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sreejith K (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question is a schematic drawing that was published under a Creative Commons license that allows free reuse of the drawing, but restricted to Noncommercial reuse. I understand that a drawing under such a license has a legitimate "fair use rationale" at Wikipedia when an alternative without the Noncommercial restriction is unavailable. I have waded through the image copyright tags to find the right tag for this image. If I haven't picked the right tag, let me know. Seanwal111111 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in John Tyndall. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.Sheodred (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sheodred (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to come here to give you the same warning. One more revert, and I report you at WP:EWN as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AN3#User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Sheodred (Result: Warned), which contains a warning for you about the nationality of John Tyndall. You are a regular contributor of content on this article but you must be careful not to change the subject's nationality again, unless there is a clear talk page consensus. People may be watching to see if admins are being even-handed on this issue and this may require uniform severity. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again reverted Tyndall's nationality. Unless you can point to a talk page consensus for your change, or agree to revert yourself, you may be blocked for edit warring. You were previously warned about this per the 3RR case mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do point to the talk page consensus for my change. Please read what I said on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality Seanwal111111 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at ECCN and AN/I. Could you put your !vote under the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Motions heading please. I am hesitant to move your comments to indicate your views on any topic block in case it appears as biased reforming. It would be better if you did that. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC) And a note to Sheodred, because I just know he'll be reading this: You can't canvas someone who has already given their opinion, only that they make it more visible under the proposal headings to reviewing admins! Olé! [reply]

Hi,

A sock posted this, but did not inform you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Seanwal111111_reported_by_93.107.94.93_.28Result:_No_action.29

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Whisky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic (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) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seanwal111111, could you show me how the refs at Luffa correlate to Luffa aegyptiaca Mill. originating from Luffa Arabum Tourn.? I'm not attacking you, I'm just interested in getting it right, and just can't figure it out. I'm perfectly happy being corrected, provided I understand that you are correct. Sadly, I know only English well, and the refs appear to be in either botanical Latin, or French, maybe; also, I'm neither a botanist, nor a taxonomist. I'm just an amateur.

I have been able to find Luffa arabum as "unresolved" at The Plant List, with the author as Steud., in 1821; and at Tropicos, with the author as L., in 1775. Neither link L. arabum as the basionym of L. aegyptiaca. Further, GRIN doesn't mention it at all (but I know they have a large backlog of species yet to be investigated). GRIN does list eight accepted species from germoplasm work here, and shows what it believes are their synonyms.

So, I'm confused. However, if the basionym is indeed L. arabum Tourn., in 1706, than we should readd the category "Plants described in" as 1706. Hamamelis (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't grasp what your problem is. I will repeat some of what I've already said. If you've still got a problem, I suggest you make the change you think is appropriate. Then, if I were to find fault with it, I'd take it to the discussion page at the appropriate article. Did you read what Philip Miller says at http://archive.org/stream/mobot31753002894894#page/LUD-LUN/mode/1up . Miller says (1) Luffa is a genus name created by Tournefort and (2) "Luffa (Aegyptiaca) Arabum" is a species name created by Tournefort. Luffa (Tourn) is the valid genus name, accepted by Philip Miller as from Tournefort, and accepted that way today as in the English example here @ year 1935. The species name Luffa aegyptiaca began as a name by that suggestion in parenthesis by Miller. But Miller also says, very correctly, that the species was first described by Tournefort. Did you see Tournefort's 1706 drawings at http://www20.us.archive.org/stream/histoiredelacad06laca#page/n260/mode/1up -- those drawings are very good. Please notice that the Wikipedia page for Luffa aegyptiaca, after my edit, is still saying the species name is from "Miller". What I deleted was the statement that "Luffa aegyptiaca was first described and published [by Miller]". The deletion is for the good reason that it was Tournefort who first described it, as Miller himself said. I don't know and don't care why or when Tournefort's species name "Luffa Arabum" got changed to the name "Luffa Aegyptiaca". I don't think one can say it was Miller who changed it, since Miller calls it "Luffa Arabum" with (Aegyptiaca) merely in parenthesis. Luffa Arabum is a dead name, which should be left rest in peace. Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luffa aegyptiaca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tournefort (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) 16:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tarragon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viability (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) 11:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English words of Semitic origin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maudlin and Cannella (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) 12:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johannes de Sacrobosco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leap Year (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) 11:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ducat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dukedom (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) 09:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Luffa aegyptiaca may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• http://luffa.info/ Luffa.info: Info on growing and using ''Luffa egyptiaca'' as a scrubbing sponge]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look what Kansas Bear have recently written. I except an answer back to him, and if you do not answer, well then take a look what i am allowed to do [5]. You can't just flee from this discussion when you started it yourself. Plus i have also written something. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained on the talk page along with numerous university sources. Your interpretation of policy does not give you license to disrupt an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for edit warring.[6] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring at Al-Karaji. You were clearly warned in this report at WP:AN3. If you wish to appeal the block, please see WP:GAB.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to participate in the talk page discussion concerning Al-Karaji. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English words of Arabic origin (C-F), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caravan. 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) 09:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you reverted my edit on that article. Let me know = lmk, sorry about the chatspeak confusion. Was just wondering why specifically you chose A-B as the target, and not something else? I think the article itself exists as a valid directory for someone who wants to mention the thing as a whole and not just a specific letter. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 00:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting that page back to a redirect. There is no valid reason to redirect that page to simply the A-B list, that is effectively a disambiguation page. If you continue to edit war over it, you will be blocked from editing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Centaurea behen, Seanwal111111!

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

Please consider adding a more recent source then 1891- the taxonomy may have changed or natural history updated. Instructing readers to seek out other sources on the internet is not appropriate: it is the editor's responsibility to verify content.

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

Learn more about page curation.

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English words of Arabic origin (K-M), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kermes. 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) 10:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonhard Rauwolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhamnus. 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) 10:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Damson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Damascene. 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) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why I inserted the hatnote at Exemplar theory: the phrase is often used to refer to a particular theory about the atonement: see, for example, this Oxford University Press book, which uses the phrase without any other qualifier. StAnselm (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi These two [7], [8] acts consider as Vandalism. This is last notice to you, If it repeated again, I will be report [Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard here] be careful.

I do not know even you understand Arabic Language or only copy paste that words from somewhere else. If You Understand Arabic language I can explain for you why is your act is wrong Modern Sciences (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:YouthfulParvizYahaghi(1936-2007),whitened,rotated,cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]