User talk:WikiLinuz/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binary search tree you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ewdqwdq -- Ewdqwdq (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiLinuz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Varna (Hinduism) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see the section on WP:WEIGHT on the WP:NPOV page. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, I really think you did a mistake. Let's have that discussion on the article's talk page. Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 17:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Akhtar Raza Khan and image. The discussion is about the topic Akhtar Raza Khan. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two revisions that I dealt with in Akhtar Raza Khan pending changes, [1] the removal of sourced material with an edit summary of “fixed typo”, hence I undid the changes, [2] reading through the history of revisions, muslimmirror.com isn't a reliable source so on the second pending revision, I accepted the change by the IP. I neither involved in that article, excluding those two revisions, nor interested. Since you've notified me about an on-going issue, I'll step back and leave it to the editors who work on that article to deal with that. Thanks. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 20:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

With respect you've (possibly) used your privilege as a pending changer reviewer to accept the image removal and to accept an edit summary by an anon IP that seems to accuse me of being a Mirror spammer. I'd respectfully ask you make the response at the ANI rather than just here. (But I agree the situation was a mess and my attempt to handle it simply made things worse). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making the comment and explanation at ANI ... much appreciated whatever the outcome. If the consensus is for removal, and it might be, Its a pity an edit summary war has overridden talk and ANI page discussions as sets bad precedents. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello there WikiLinuz! My recent edits on PAW Patrol, where I removed mentions of #IncludeTheGirls, was mainly because it was not PAW PATROL that started it all, actually, it was Big Hero Six that started #IncludeTheGirls where a mother was looking for Big Hero Six fabric but found out that the female characters were excluded. Therefore, I believe that #IncludeTheGirls should be mentioned in the Big Hero Six article instead.

173.225.243.193 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The material you removed states,

Today's Parent noted in April 2015 that PAW Patrol images appeared frequently on Twitter with the hashtag "#IncludeTheGirls".

Here, it didn't mention about who started the hash tag, rather, images on social media included this hash tag, which is also what the sources states,

[...] she took to social media and urged people to use an #IncludeTheGirls hashtag listing other examples of manufacturers leaving out crucial female characters from their product lines. Tweeted photos included products for the Canadian kids’ TV series PAW Patrol without the female character Skye [...]

I guess you can add, “big hero six started” in Big Hero Six article, since here we are not saying that PAW Patrol started the hash tag, but “appeared frequently”. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 03:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello.

Why are you erasing my recent edit in August 17 where I added a wikilink, because that specific topic has its own existing article: 1668 North Anatolia earthquake? No reason is given when you erased it. The other topic is the article 1949 Karlıova earthquake, which I added, but was erased. What is the justification for erasing them?

31.200.13.173 (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Refer to Bruce1ee's revert summary. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello.

I have added an additional event and sources for these two events in the article August 17. Autopatroller User:Bruce1ee said that credible sources are acceptable for the topics to stay.

I want to let you know, so you can check them.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.13.173 (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz😊. I updated the version of the article from September 27. You obviously deleted it due to carelessness. If not. Then I ask you to explain the reason. Thanks! Edited on September 27, 2021 "Brief description. I updated the information on the board of directors of the fund - as of the summer of 2021, citing as a source - the minutes of the meeting, which took place in June (not to be unfounded). ["Meeting of the Board / June 2021 / Minutes" (English). Wikimedia Foundation. June 1-2, 2021] In the Advisory Board section, I singled out a senior community development manager and a responsible public relations manager. When reviewing the minutes, please note that the experts are directly present at this board meeting and are involved in advising the latter. Among other things, they provide interactive presentations on the current state of affairs, and offer an annual plan to help clarify and set priorities for the coming year. Looking at Wikipedia in other languages, I noticed a tendency to completely omit information about the Advisory Board in articles. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to offer volunteers to add this unit. Thanks! R. Shaban. Registered user and one of the editors of Wikipedia. --Shaban Roman Petrovich (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)"

I see you recently accepted a pending change to September 8 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just a note that you might've broken WP:3rr on the page Prime Minister of Canada with diffs:1, 2, 3, 4 Justiyaya 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: I was reverting the edits as part of my pending review process. The material which was added violates several policies, however, they were continuously revert-warring against me. They're blocked, BTW. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 12:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yea I know the user is banned and the material added violates WP:RS and stuff... But still think it's probably best not to edit war even if they (the banned user) started it first, anyways, I really just had to post the section up there, as warning one user involved would probably lead to accusations of unfairness. The blocked user is already claiming that the ban against them is "disciminative"(Special:Diff/1047353215) Justiyaya 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely one of the iffy cases of edit warring, and the obvious vandalism exception may still apply. Anyways seen you reviewing a lot of pending changes so thanks for keeping the backlog low :D (Wow 145 approves in a week) Justiyaya 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Also is it alright if I tag User:HTTP Multiplexer for WP:U2 and WP:G7? Justiyaya 14:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you can tag that (in fact, I wanted to do the same since that's created out of accident). —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 14:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

{{Done}} Special:Diff/1047690324 Justiyaya 03:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that this was an edit war in theory, but the other editor was unreceptive to being told to read policy. Anarchyte (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz: , Hi , congratulations on getting rollbackers rights.best regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 13:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there,

I noticed your reverted my edit in commit 1048648471 on Mercedes-Benz, I looked through it saw some changes I didn't intentionally make. I must have used an older version of the article to click edit on; other than the infobox founder thing, did I accidentally un-revert anything else?

I was reading the article and it was very confusing to read with possibly broken english, so I thought I would try to help; please let me what else I can fix or change before submitting again later. ~ Anna (@AnnaLikesHistory) (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this edit, did you read the edit summary I provided? The paragraph is some random WP:COI text about a topic that does not exist in reliable sources. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which does talks about synthesis photography and CGI,

As Manovich argues, "although we normally think that synthetic photographs produced with computer graphics are inferior to real photographs, in fact, they are too perfect. But beyond that we can also say that, paradoxically, they are also too "real" (202). With the increasing implementation of CGI [...]
— Abbott, Stacey (2006). "Final Frontiers: Computer-Generated Imagery and the Science Fiction Film". Technoculture and Science Fiction. 33 (1). SF Group: 91. JSTOR 4241410.

Although this particular journal article isn't included in the page, I'll add it. But, it conveys the basic idea. WikiLinuz (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more,

* Johnson, Michael J.; Roberts, Barry A. (13 July 1994). "Comparing enhanced situation awareness system computer-generated imagery approaches: symbolic to photorealistic". SPIE's International Symposium on Optical Engineering and Photonics in Aerospace Sensing. 2220. Orlando, FL, United States. doi:10.1117/12.179610.
* Ajiwe, Uchechukwu (2020). "Believable Illusions: A Semiotic Appraisal of the Use of Computer Generated Images (CGI) in Nollywood films". JOURNAL OF THEATRE AND MEDIA STUDIES (1).

WikiLinuz (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your reply. I've answered at the talk page. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 05:49, Monday, October 11, 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just corrected my edition. Thank you. Baal Nautes (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:References and page numbers and use one of the styles that is compatible with inline references, such as Inline page numbers. But we don't mix two different styles of citation in the same article, nor do we switch them back and forth arbitrarily. MrOllie (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you have approved 271 edits in the last few weeks, which is quite a lot, you play an essential role in keeping the pending changes backlog down, thank you for your hard work on pending changes reviewing. Your pending changes reviewer role is expiring on 24 October, remember to request the role again :D Justiyaya 09:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Justiyaya, thank you for reminding, I'll leave a note to the administrator who gave me the right. And yeah, I do love to review edits :) WikiLinuz (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Binary search tree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Read-only.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was undone to Kash Doll and click here to visit. I have been matched March 14, 1992 for Kash Doll. CuteWatermelon (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cache-oblivious algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear friend I have a request for you can you go the article horror film on the timeline section can split the 1970s–1980s into two decades say they can be even like this
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
Re ruhsyeteeieie yo ei (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please make this request at the article's talk page. WikiLinuz (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: I think this account is a sock of User:Horrorfan5000, which you blocked a month back; since the request seems to be similar to that of this. WikiLinuz (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Helper function. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 17#Helper function until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've left my comment on the page. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You just crossed the WP:3RR bright line at Swastika. I am giving you a chance to self-revert and avoid the certain block. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Making unfounded threats doesn't help either. Seems like you have much experience in violating 3RR and edit-war policies than I do. Please talk objectively, and no; none of my edits will be reverted as it doesn't violate any of the policies, so good luck in trying to get me blocked. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiLinuz, you are risking a block for 3RR violation at Swastika. You may be able to avoid this by replying to my message on the noticeboard and agreeing to make no more reverts without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't refactor the neutrally worded RfC to suit your program. It's gigantic violation of talk page guidelines and neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did I violate the neutrality? What exactly do you find to be in violation to neutrality? Seems like you are gaming the system regarding the outcome of the consensus. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked, or have a reduced block period, for the following reason:

• My first edit to Swastika was this on 01:14, Nov 28. I would not like to go into the reliability of the sources here, since every source I cited throughout my edit at Swastika was a multitude of peer-reviewed academic journals. That being said, my edit was first reverted by Binksternet on 2:58, Nov 28, and followed a talkpage topic with regards to a source by Simon D. Messing that I cited. Following that, from 04:04 - 05:07 28 Nov, I had quoted various sources in support of my previous edit here. As a response, Binksternet had made a claim that another editor had already argued about this topic in the past here. However, through the archive of the said editor, I could not notice a direct instance where "Paul Barlow" discussed Hakenkreuz, and its English translations; so I asked them to link to that discussion, but they never linked me to any such discussions on our subsequent communications. I requested them multiple times to cite me to at least a single reliable source that doesn't translate Hakenkreuz as "hooked cross" (here, here, here). But throughout the course of communication, they never cited any evidence in support of their premise. And, I made my 2nd revert here at 6:00, 28 Nov following Binksternet's comment and my reply at 5:27 28 Nov, prior to the 2nd revert.
  • After multiple attempts of trying to make a consensus with them, I don't see any progress. So, I opened a dispute resolution ticket here at DRN board. That attempt was also unsuccessful as Binksternet never address the sources I quoted and accused me of swallowing Hitler's propaganda here; they rather made vague claims through the discussion. They often cited Malcolm Quinn's 1994 The Swastika in support of their reverts, however on this reply at our discussion, I had directly quoted Quinn's said work, in which Quinn evidently stand in support of Hakenkreuz's translation as "hooked cross". But, they didn't address that and accused me of "cherry-picking", but they never cared to explain further.
  • So, I removed the disputed text, Messing's writings, and added the translation of Hakenkreuz since at that time their dispute at the talkpage was only concerning Messing's writings, but the translation was also negligently reverted stating that "it was inconsistent with mainstream literature", but if you could take a peek at the discussion at talkpage, I explicitly addressed that claim of being "inconsistent" through citing multiple peer-reviewed academic journals.
  • They again added Template:inconsistent despite our discussion, which I reverted since the placement of that template violates its usage policy, and this was cited as my 4th revert.
  • After an unsuccessful attempt with consensus, dispute resolution and discussion with them, an RfC was opened. However, their proposal statement of RfC neither matched the locus of our discussions nor my points (I never concurred with their proposal abstract). So, I requested them to modify their RfC proposal abstract to suit the contested objective of the discussion here, however, that request was also ignored. So, I made a supplementary note here to help other editors with regards to what the disagreements were and the goal this RfC consensus is trying to achieve.
  • Within the RfC, Binksternet was citing an English dictionary in support of their claim of a swastika being an English word for Hakenkreuz here, however, in history topics, there is already a community consensus with regards to what constitutes as a reliable source on history articles (see WP:HISTRS) and an English dictionary isn't an RS per that consensus, which I stated here (and also quoted several academic journals by historians). But, they reverted my reply/input at RfC here and here, which was clearly a disruptive behaviour and demonstrates their disfavour in reaching a consensus. I mentioned that at the 3RR notice board here, but that complaint regarding the disruptive act was also ignored.
• EdJohnston had told me (at 22:43, 29 Nov) that I would not get a block if I vow to make no further reverts at Swastika without a prior consensus, which I did here at 23:16, 29 Nov and never made any edits/reverts to Swastika ever since 23:16.

I am blocked on the basis of WP:BATTLEGROUND, however, I presented my case conscientiously above, and I believe it displays my engagement in discussion, dispute resolution and consensus, all throughout maintaining good faith and was neither uncivil nor disruptive throughout my communication with other editors at Talk:Swastika, the 3RR notice board, or DRN board. If anyone regarded this undertaking as a "disruptive talkpage behaviour" or "uncivil battleground editing" according to how Wikipedia define such acts, I apologise. WikiLinuz (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unambiguous 3RR breach. None of this request seems to understand our basic policy on edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

@EdJohnston: Apologies for the ping, but I wonder why I was still given a one week block even after I vowed you that I'll not make any more reverts until consensus, after your proposal; since you mentioned there wouldn't be a block if I promised—and kept up to that. I admit my mistakes in breaching 3RR, I should have known better before edit warring and rushing my way into editing Swastika and responding at the article talkpage, and I'm WP:SORRY. I'm requesting a reduced block period if you're open to that, but if not, I'm fine taking a break if you think one week is inevitably necessary. I have no intentions to make any further edits to my talk page here, unless it's necessary; so, it wouldn't be a necessity to block me from editing this talk page. Thanks, WikiLinuz (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In my post, I said that you *may* be able to avoid a block for the 3RR. That was before I became aware of all the nonsense on the talk page. It was also before hearing that you had previously been considered for AE sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Accept reason:

WikiLinuz (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Assuming good faith, I assume the latest request to be sincere and suggest that the block be vacated. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiLinuz writes incorrectly that I reverted "without conveying a reason" the RfC changes made by WikiLinuz. My reason was stated in an edit summary as "don't refactor the RfC". Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Refactor implies changing your original RfC question, whereas I added an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template abided by the said policy. I neither refactored, nor rewritten your original RfC abstract. And, don't refactor the RfC isn't a valid "reason" for the reverts, and goes against the cited policy. The current RfC question (the ongoing discussion) doesn't reflect the dispute, nor describe of my intended addition, but the RfC question was not consulted with me before starting the RfC. My intended RfC question would've been Should we make a single mention of the original Nazi Party's emblem name (Hakenkreuz), and use the term Swastika in all the other subsequent places when referring to the Nazi symbol?. WikiLinuz (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

...Which still isn't a neutral RfC question, because your "single mention" is intended to take over the definitive wording established at the beginning of the section, rather than a single mention of the German language term. Your intent is to redefine the topic, and you have been hiding that fact behind wikilawyering. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing with you here, we may take that to the relevant section. But, here is my final reply: you were stating "Hakenkreuz" as a loan word of "Swastika" "Swastika" as a loan word, and I had explained why it doesn't fit into the definition of a "loan word" here, since Nazi's swastika's [Hakenkreuz] translation is quite different. Rather, Hakenkreuz is a "hyponym" and Swastika is a "hyperonym" in linguistics, you can read about that at this article. So, mentioning the hyponym does not redefine the topic, it fine-tunes the topic since we're conveying a more accurate description, although it isn't a super famous term as that of "Swastika" in media. I'm open to not holding on to this dispute if you could critique the sources in an objective way, I'm all ears towards anything that improves our article.

@TrangaBellam: I see your participation in the RFC, so thanks for that. I would be happy if you could critique (at the Swastika talk page) the sources that I cited in support of this change I was describing. You can find those at my past revision (under "Use in Nazism" subsection), there are 7 peer-reviewed scholarly sources in support of this specific change (i.e. mentioning Hakenkreuz, as I suggested in my above preferred RFC question), and I quoted a few of them here as well. This is also my prefered revision, so critique this revision's usage of Hakenkreuz too (one mention in lead and one mention in the article body, and using swastika—the hyperonym—everywhere else.)
PS: (since your user page says you're a professional level Dutch speaker, I think you also know "Haken" and "kreuz" literally translates into "hooked" and "cross", just like the sources say.) WikiLinuz (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Point of order... I said the word swastika is a loan word in English. I did not say that about hakenkreuz which is not an English word. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how I was disruptive instead of throwing a frivolous accusation at me. Ahciwbxj (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ahciwbxj: See this, for the use of biased source. And, regarding Swastika, there is already a dispute and there's an open RFC and this topic was previous discussed. If you're not going to self-revert this revert, you may end up with an AE sanction. WikiLinuz (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to understand why you deleted factual information in reference to 10 FD Sqn (Air Support)? 2A00:23C5:5516:5E01:948C:61A6:59D9:90F7 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Link me to that diff? WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Would like to know why you deleted all information on Kenny Pickett that I updated. I am new to editing here so please let me know if I did something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X82937 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you didn't cite any reliable source in support of those additions. WP:BLP articles should should be verifiable, so please provide inline citations; you're welcomed to try again. Also, sign your message by entering ~~~~. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you WikiLinuz. I will read up and try to learn so I can contribute and not waste people's time. X82937 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I see your contributions and I've seen that you are using RedWarn to revert. I'm wondering if why you do not use rollback options on RedWarn for fast reverts, you should choose the rollback and not the rollback-like since you have a rollback permission, it helps to revert fast. ctrlwiki • 08:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I generally use the rollback option if it meets WP:ROLLBACKUSE. If it isn't, I prefer Twinkle's rollback option. RedWarn allows us to choose a reason for the revert, such as no RS cited, BLP violation, factually incorrect info, etc.; there're a lot of useful templated revert summaries, and that's the only reason I use RedWarn (I also strongly dislike their mention of RW version like "(RW 16.1)", it's just ugly). But yeah, the performance differs, since I think rollback option is a native implementation within MediaWiki, whereas all others (RedWarn or Twinkle) are plugins. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 09:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello WikiLinuz: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Justiyaya 23:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's Christmas time and you receive seasonal greetings instead of a block, I guess. That is, if you stop edit warring.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Hello WikiLinuz: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Please have a closer look at WP:ONUS.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: WP:NOT3RR#3, reverting vandalism isn't edit-warring. The user was already been reported. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia; the exception is for obvious cases of it. I wouldn't say it was vandalism, let alone obvious vandalism. Please discuss the matter on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I suggest that you have a look at David Frawley#Academia. It's bluntly established in the article body and the lead is written in accordance with WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE. It isn't a matter of dispute; if it is, the other user shouldn't edit war against an established consensus. I'm pretty sure you're acquainted with that. Given that, please retract this warning. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hm. I'd say it's a content dispute even if done in a very disruptive way, done in the intent of making Wikipedia more neutral (and perhaps strongly failing to do so). But as the user was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing now, there's noone to edit war with anyway. I also understand that the reverts were made with the "obvious vandalism" exception in mind, although we disagree about whether it applied. I have striked-through the warning part of my message and do wish you Happy Holidays regardless. I'll remove the page protection as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Yes, they're blocked by another administrator. Thank you for retracting your warning. (as a side note, there isn't any content dispute. They explicitly vandalized in opposition to an established fact and consensus in the article body.) Anyway, Happy Holidays. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 03:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, I had misunderstood that. Sorry. :) Page protection is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an update regarding this, at User_talk:ToBeFree#Peppergoat23 (permanent link). In a nutshell, reverting and blocking this user was overdue. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. It was, indeed. They should have been blocked under WP:NONAZI. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 20:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: Their vandalistic edits at David Frawley was also whitewashing the subject, so I wouldn't be surprised, ToBeFree. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 20:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I try not to judge the content when dealing with behavior in a content conflict, and I lacked the context of the article subject. Well, shit happens. Sorry again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, ToBeFree! Enjoy your Holidays! WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 20:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, HTTP multiplexer, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiLinuz: Why did you remove my parenthetical note claiming a logical error in the Wikipedia article "Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem"? Was my note illogical? In what way? I don't know whether the error was in Gödel's original proof or in the paraphrasing the article's author(s) made to state the proof using modern terminology. Can we avoid an editing war? Dirsaka (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dirsaka: I suggest you learn how to edit Wikipedia. Once you've done that, read our style and verifiability guidelines. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice link; my father learned to program in the 1960s, when studying chemistry; he still knows archaic programming languages which operate at a really basic level. My first computer was a ZX Spectrum, purchased in 1985. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks! :-) Ritchie's a really nice guy, I've had interacted with him once. Growing up, he's one of my heroes in the field—he still is. I'm also a huge fan of the design philosophies of Ritchie and Ken Thompson. My first computer ran UNIX SVR4.2.
PS: this is a good watch. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bulletproof hosting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binary search tree you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vogon101 -- Vogon101 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Binary search tree you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Binary search tree for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vogon101 -- Vogon101 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Bulletproof hosting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bulletproof hosting for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Bulletproof hosting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bulletproof hosting for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nataraja you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Nataraja you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nataraja for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Nataraja you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Nataraja for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you revert my update to The Outing wiki page?

Thanks!

Not reverted by me. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hihi,

Why did you revert my update to Cultural Appropriation? You tagged original research, however that was not original research—see the scholarly source I referenced.

I can understand why this may have looked like original research, because the source is a little bit difficult to track down, but I think you will agree that it is accurate and exactly relevant.

Thanks,

DullRoar

@DullRoar: New messages should be placed at the bottom. Also, please indent. Regarding the revert, you cited a WP:PRIMARY by searching for the word "cultural appropriation", analyzed the source yourself, and wrote it as a fact. That's not how it's supposed to be done. You should cite a secondary source in support of the term already being used by XYZ. Example: According to scholar ABC, "XYZ used the term in the year 1950", and cite ABC. You shouldn't cite XYZ's paper and say "XYZ already wrote about it in 1950" because that constitutes original research. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz,

Per your request, I am adding a secondary source now. Please now stop reverting this edit, as I am adding a secondary source to demonstrate that this reading is not unique to me, as you request. This is in fact a secondary source I observed before making the edit in the first place, however I originally included the primary source only, because it is the best source on the topic. Including additional secondary sources feels arbitrary to me, however I will include one to fulfill the criteria you state here.

DullRoar — Preceding unsigned comment added by DullRoar (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any plans to request a pcr again? cause you're very good in reviewing. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I may request it in a few weeks. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 17:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my edit where I added a source in the Anti Hindi Sentiment Page. Can you Educate me how is it unreliable. Extorc (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: The website, hindupost.in, is not reliable. If you believe it is, please discuss at RS noticeboard. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, wouldn't you please take a look at the two sources that were referenced? EDIT: the first reference from MEAWW.COM (1) mentions the term cultural appropriation, while the second reference from NEWSWEEK.COM (2) mentions that Ms. Goldberg is both not Jewish and that she chose a Jewish surname as her stage name:

1) "... A petition has also been started for the same that read, “Whoopi Goldberg has used the Jewish last name based off the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews run Hollywood and believed that the name would help her career. Whoopi didn’t adopt the name due to admiration of the Jewish people, she adopted the name based on a dangerous stereotype and therefore is a form of cultural appropriation.... "

2) "... To make matters worse, the new conversation about the Jewish people's identity and history is being led by a non-Jewish actress—who ironically chose a Jewish last name as her stage name—who is now attempting to squeeze the Jewish experience into her myopic, progressive view of the world. ... "

I edited this for more context.

Thanks in advance.

69.112.128.69 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. As of October 10, 2021, meaww.com isn't a reliable source. We need sources of a higher standard to make accusations against a living person.
2. Source didn't mention cultural appropriation.

You shouldn't combine two independent sources together and derive a fallacious conclusion. That's a WP:SYNTHESIS, which is disallowed here. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 04:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the astute response. Sorry, you might have misconstrued the rationale for the two sources. The first source was in support of the first concept, while the second source was more of a documentary nature, that refers to the heritage and surname of the individual. The key word "mention" used, means since there was a "mention" of those two facts, and the two facts were referenced in the two sources, were the sole reason for quoting them. They were combined in the sense that they are next to each other in the same paragraph. No conclusions were being drawn. Also, the first source was only quoting the wording of a petition (issued by StopAntisemitism.org). So could one simply document that petition, itself, instead? 69.112.128.69 (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As I previously stated, #1 isn't reliable, and you cannot use that for anything related to a living person. A source must explicitly mention cultural appropriation - not a reference to their heritage or surname, but cultural appropriation. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 21:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

So is #1 considered NOT reliable in the sense that if they relied on the source they would not have a source that they'd rely on that for the article? Or is it that the suspicion as to that in another sense? Thanks in advance. The first one is not "Newsweek" by the way. 69.112.128.69 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The illustrations of sine functions are amazing!! — DaxServer (t · c) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Glad you found them to be mesmerizing as well :-) WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 23:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fast flux you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• PS - I placed Fast flux into the Good articles/Engineering and technology-websites and the Internet designation. If you think it belongs elsewhere, feel free to correct my error. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Shearonink: Thank you! :-) I think it best fits under websites and the Internet. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 18:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Fast flux you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fast flux for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious why you reverted the edits made by an IP user to Six Flags Great Adventure. I suspect this editor may be a sock, as the user all of sudden appeared, and started making large edits to multiple amusement park pages. So far I haven't found a reason to revert edits to other pages. I'm wondering what you saw that made you revert that particular page.—JlACEer (talk)

@JlACEer: Those were reverted as part of WP:RPC, reasons being an unexplained edit, and no sources; so reverted to previous stable version. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  06:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be interested to know the reason for reverting back the edits on Adhyatma Ramayana. The majority of sources online do credit this text to Vedvyasa as it finds its original place in the Brahmanda Purana. Look forward to hearing your thoughts and reasons. StolenFocus007 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You should WP:CITE a reliable source that states it was authored by Veda Vyasa. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  17:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you reverted the edits I made on the List of criminal enterprises, gangs, and syndicates page?

Unsourced additions. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  19:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You rolled back my edits on Cuban Missile Crisis due to unexplained removal of content. However, the removal was not unexplained: as I said in my edit summary, the claim I removed was not supported by the cited reference. This made it unsourced information and hence eligible for bold removal (I believe it's also wrong and hence found no point in trying to look for a non-existent source to back it up). I don't want to get into an edit war and would certainly be willing to discuss more if you disagree with my assessment, but I stand by the change. How would you like to proceed? 216.211.252.147 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please take the discussions concerning content disputes to the article talk page. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at it as a mistaken revert rather than an actual dispute, but it sounds like you might not so I guess I'll see you over there. 216.211.252.147 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you still interested in discussing this? If so, please leave your feedback at Talk:Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Unsourced_claim_regarding_call_between_JFK_and_his_predecessors. 216.211.252.147 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Aryanism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Aryanism, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: WP:NOT3RR. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 01:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You're restoring a version that has a broken source link and text that is not supported by that source. Stating your reason for doing so would be helpful. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiLinuz, the mistakes you are making are unacceptable and tantamount to abuse of your extended permissions.[1][2][3][4] Mistakes can be forgiven, but inability to fundamentally differentiate between obvious vandalism and good faith edits, and use the tools accordingly, can not. More importantly, failure to communicate in response to a legitimate complaint cannot be overlooked. The way you treated that IP above was absolutely horrible. Reverting their explained constructive edits for no reason because you couldn't take two seconds to check their edit summaries, then when they explain this to you directly, you regurgitate some bizzare generic statement telling them to take their content dispute to the talk page, where you forced them to explain themselves to literally no one? And then you just ignore their followup replies? Just like you ignored the other legitimate complaint on your talk page? This is completely unacceptable behavior. I'm sorry if you feel this is harsh, but it's not as harsh as your treatment of that IP. I cannot in good conscience let you off with a warning here. This sort of thing may seem insignificant but it reflects badly on the entire project. Your Rollback and Pending changes reviewer permissions have been revoked until you can demonstrate that you genuinely understand and have rectified the issues, at which point you may make that case at WP:PERM. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Swarm:

1. diff 1 - This edit—with no edit summary—blatantly goes against multiple consensuses on the talk pages. Please see the discussions concerning this. Intentional disruptive behavior with no regard for community consensus is a disruption to the project.
2. diff 2 - I'm surprised that you think this revert was an unacceptable and tantamount abuse. Test edits like these occur frequently. For instance, I just reverted this last night, and there are multiple such examples. Intentionally making spelling errors are quite common, and is defined as vandalism by our guideline. But I usually use RedWarn rollbacks with edit summaries linking to guidelines on test edits. I will keep this in mind, but I stand by the revert. WP:IDTEST.
3. diff 3 - I should have reverted this RedWarn's non-constructive edit summary rollback option instead. This, I think, is an honest mistake on my part with regard to rollback use. I agree that this revert shouldn't have been made with the rollback feature.
4. diff 4 - Let me take some time to explain this. I stand by this revert. The cited source supports the text written on the article, so my RedWarn rollback edit summary was accurate. I was privately collecting scholarly sources to copy edit this text because the text removed by that IP was cited to a YouTube video (so was the very previous text, which I'm surprised they didn't bother to remove). I should have left a note stating I'm collecting sources and asked them to wait until I copy edit, but I was occupied with something else (I'm not making this as an excuse). That's the reason I told the IP to take it to the article page, such that I can quote the sources there for others to discuss. That being said, I should have left a note and prioritized this; I will be working on that article. I should have handled this better.

I genuinely believe you should have asked for my explanation prior to editing user groups/permission, as this was my first warning. I have meditated on the indelicate rollback feature used on nonobvious vandalism, and I will make sure this doesn't happen again. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Swarm: The diff 3 was also reverted by other editors and the IP is edit warring on that article. See this, this and this. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the two Rollbacks you defend, the fact that you're articulating reasons that they were, in fact, good reversions, is kind of the entire point here. Rollback is literally a tool that doesn't include an explanation, so it's only authorized for use in a small number of predetermined specific situations. Which, as a Rollbacker, we trust beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're familiar with. Communication is required, that's the central principle here. When you use Rollback, it is implied that no communication with anyone is necessary, which is why a demonstrated ability to differentiate between obvious vandalism and good faith unconstructive edits, and use the tool accordingly (which really means use edit summaries accordingly, and actually engage in communication as appropriate), is essentially the only articulated qualification for the tool that exists.

Look at this. You use this as a defense? Does this make you proud of Wikipedia's recent changes patrol? You stonewalled some IP who was trying to improve an article, but it's okay because someone else jumped in and edit warred with them too? And when they came to your talk page you just ignored them? Honestly, it makes us all look like clowns when you do this to a random member of the public who heard that "anyone can edit".

Look, I am an anti-vandalism recent changes patroller who got promoted to adminship. As an admin, I'm one of most active WP:PERM admins of all time. This is my wheelhouse. I know what the expected standards are, what the expected mistakes are, what the acceptable margins of error are and what the accepted parameters for revocation are. I know that improper use of Rollback is usually a minor mistake caused by moving too fast that should usually warrant nothing more than a civil conversation. And it's true, the issues with Rollback are insignificant specks of dust to me compared to the actual communication issue I witnessed above. Let me be clear: you had no right to tell them to take it to the talk page to begin with. Your edit summary was not accurate, the other user 100% issued an explanation in their edit summary, bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, communication is required as a matter of policy, and failing to engage and explain your edits, and particularly explain your objections, when requested, after you've reverted, is straightforwardly Disruptive editing. As I said, I could not in good conscience let you off with a mere warning, with all that being considered. I didn't consider blocking you here, but just for context, this type of conduct is blockable and I have issued lengthy blocks for it. I'm not sure why this was ever an issue, you seem like a reasonable person and a skillful communicator. However you cannot meet the minimum requirements for permissions that specifically enable you to oversee other peoples' edits if you are unable to engage in communication pertaining to your reversions. That is a significant issue and a change that you must demonstrate before you can be considered eligible for extended permissions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you for your explanation, Swarm. I realize that I acted ill-mannered to the IP editor. I should have subscribed to the Wikipedia:IP editors are human too philosophy more strongly. You are right. I have misused the rollback feature against good-faith edits in the past. I now realize that intentional disruptive edits does not translate to intentional vandalism, which I intertwined until you bought this to my attention, which I thank you did. I've learned they aren't the same, and I should use the features more responsibly in the future. I've taken introspection and realized my mistake, and I promise this will not be repeated and I will not act discourteously to IP editors. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand I sincerely appreciate that. But on the other, yes there is absolutely a difference between vandalism and good faith disruptive editing, separating it in your head is quite literally the entire point. Like it's literally the only qualification for Rollback. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I must acknowledge the fact that I can't just be teaching you this now. It just doesn't correlate with our standards for the Rollback permission. There's that, the communication issues, the fact that you're not issuing the standardized warnings (which is another communication issue at best, at worst you're giving vandals a free pass from the blocking system). I wish I could just accept your apology and give you it back, but I simply cannot ignore the fact that I do not believe that you are qualified for it. If you were any random editor making a request at WP:PERM, I simply could not approve you. You need to start from square one and establish an impeccable track record, and I think you need to review WP:ROLLBACK and WP:RCP, WP:CVU might provide a good refresher as well. It's not a high bar to meet, I promise you that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Swarm: I did intertwine between intentional disruptive editing/edit testing, and vandalism; that was my misbelieved where I used the rollback feature, and I acknowledge that. But I wasn't expecting you to edit my user groups to reissue the permissions either; I understand your concerns. I will reapply for it at PERM after a month or two, when you can check my record. Regards, WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 08:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Vayu-yana Details: [Someone is forcing delete of this to compromise the person who deletes it , so be careful before you delete] just incase, I die and people compromise, as its still in progress.the US Government force inject or feed Abilify medication by lying delusion. Every proof is available, instead of giving a lawyer to sort issues, US Government harasses me (https://madhvabharga.blogspot.com/).

In the name of delusion, American Government is made a hell of me. They are passing my father's energies , my biological father, when there is a blood relation. There are 2 billion men on Earth, why my father and my brother? Can you please intervene and help sort out the issue? I am tired , why energies ? Do energies decide win or loss of a country, then passing energies in a woman this way, makes a country lose in entirety. It doesn't matter if its kaliyuga, as no one took my permission , so they are compromising the land, American soil.

The cop and a few other people have already told the truth , yet these people behind my back continue passing energies. I got Madhvacharya's, (founder of Dvaita philosophy), essence. I am not interested in any romantic association with any man as of now. Can you please intervene and resolve the issue?

What? What are you talking about? WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 13:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about uninformed and/or POV argumentation on topics related to Aryanism. However this ping is a clear violation of our WP:CANVAS guideline. Please be aware and avoid this in the future. If you want to bring in third parties, the best way is to leave a neutrally worded message on a relevant noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I wasn't asking for your inputs on the article talk page to influence the output of a consensus. From what I have observed, you seem to be an editor who's active in race-related areas, and also an editor who I previously worked with. So I just thought of collaborating with you to improve our articles on these areas. I apologize if this attempt was in violation of our canvassing guidelines. I didn't expect that you would be disgruntled annoyed by it, sorry. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, calling me disgruntled is definitely unhelpful. I care about this topic very much, which means it is important to me not to violate PAG while engaging. That should be important to you too, and you should welcome being corrected when you slip up. It will make you a stronger editor, and more effective at protecting the topics we both care about from disruption. Generalrelative (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Oops, "disgruntled" is definitely the wrong word. Actually, I meant to say "annoyed". I just learned this new word and failed in the attempt of using it :-) WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hope you are doing great I just wanted to know the reason why was my link removed from the article - Time Complexity. It was the link to my own original blog and website. And I want to ask one more thing - can I add that link in the referrals section, if not in the article? Thank you Ateev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akd3257 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Akd3257: As stated by the note on your talk page, Wikipedia shouldn't be used for WP:PROMOTION (be it your own blog or website). And, original research is also prohabited here. Please read those relevant policies. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 13:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, WikiLinuz! I believe you haven't properly checked my edits before reverting them so quickly. Let me detail:

• Infobox panel. If you take a look at the Establishment section, you will see the names of all the founders, which I simply put together in the Infobox: "The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) was founded in September 2003 by Mihir Meghani, an emergency care physician, Aseem Shukla, an associate professor in urologic surgery, Suhag Shukla, an attorney, Nikhil Joshi, a labor law attorney, and Adeeti Joshi, a speech therapist."

Second, I updated the organization's address as it is found on their official website:

• https://www.hinduamerican.org

Hindu American Foundation 910 Seventeenth Street NW, Suite 315 Washington, DC 20006

• • Only the suite number has changed here

• • • Third, all I did for the Summary section was to bring the same statement (with the source) from the Establishment section:

The organization describes itself as a human rights and advocacy group, providing "a voice for the 2 million strong Hindu American community", that aims to educate the government and the public about Hinduism and the issues concerning the Hindus globally. It emphasizes the "Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism."[8]

So, it is not understood what sources your are talking about. I updated the Infobox and rebalanced the Summary from the text below. Please, take a closer look before your revert my edits again. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We should be using WP:SECONDARY sources for that 2nd edit you made. We cannot cite HAF's website for denying the allegations of right-wing leaning. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 06:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

So, as I pointed out at talk, this (1) scan of the full page includes Meyers Konv. Lexikon in the bottom left. So I think it's self-evident that the image is in fact from the encyclopaedia. Ficaia (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: We don't usually take the watermarks or printed sealing in an image at face value. A reliable secondary should attest to its authenticity. In this particular image, for example, if you peek into the "source" (under "Summary" section), you can see that it's taken from www.retrobibliothek.de (a dubiously reliable German website). It took me some time of surfing to get to this page where we can its original source (you'll find the image if you click on "high-resolution facsimile"). I'm keen to add that image to the article as a reference to a historical encyclopedia as much as you do once I find an RS mentioning it. I'm stern towards verifiability on that article because I'm trying to make it a GA. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 04:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, I suggest the image should be restored. I think you're being a bit obtuse insisting we exclude it in the meantime. The image is quite obviously from the encyclopaedia. Or are you suggesting it is photoshopped? Ficaia (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I found a source concerning it; will be adding soon. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trie you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Antediluvian -- The Antediluvian (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The article Trie you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trie for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Antediluvian -- The Antediluvian (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations for your work on Trie. It was an interesting data structure, indeed. Your response was fast! The Antediluvian 22:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I listed the article under "Programming" subsection at WP:GA/ET. The Antediluvian 22:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 23:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The article Trie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Antediluvian -- The Antediluvian (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your swift actions in counter-vandalism... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 03:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 04:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making a computing article a GA!! If you have sometime would you be able to look at Durga article. There's a recent push to associate Vaishno Devi a synonym for Durga. Your help is greatly appreciated 🙏 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Hello, I think User:Redtigerxyz is knowledgeable on this topic. It'd be helpful to consult them. But, AFAIK, the discrete manifestation of deities deserve their own article if they're notable (which in this case, I think they are). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 09:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've asked for help on their talk page! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Reversed my changes, but no reason given. "Previous version is better"? Please explain. In the text it gives eastern Iranian Plateau, it needs to say northwestern Indian Subcontinent since Vedic was situated exclusively in the northwest, the Indian Subcontinent is about as large as Europe so not being specific is purposefully misleading, its like saying Proto-Germanic was situated in "Europe", which is not helpful nor is it ever done on Wikipedia articles. Secondly, all languages are organized in order of importance and heritage of the states which they were situated in, Pakistan and Afghanistan come first naturally. Windafarna (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox summarize the article body. Where in the article body does it say that? The only instance of that was a reference to older rules of the Vedic Sanskrit, but that doesn't merit a change in the infobox. And with regards to your second argument, which Wikipedia policy states that the regions should be sorted in the supposed significance of the heritage? If you disagree with order, establish a consensus on the talk page. Please take content disputes to the article talk page. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 00:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The standard on Wikipedia is that it comes in order of heritage first, it's literally within all decently written articles if you haven't bothered to look. Furthermore, you don't have to clarify basic reality when Khyber and Punjab exist within Pakistan mostly, which was the heart of the Vedic existence and where the Rigveda and all its tales take place. In the region section, it literally clarifies eastern Iranian Plateau, but northwestern isn't clarified? I'm sorry but no Indo-Aryan people existed outside the Indus at this point, and its even worse leaving it in this case since at least the Iranian Plateau was already inhabited by Indo-Iranian peoples who actually had connections with each other (evidenced in ancient literature). You've literally given me no reason why the previous article was "better", which it isn't since it's blatantly misleading. This is a minor change which improves readers perception of where Vedic Sanskrit was geophraphically and historically situated. Windafarna (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I already told you to take it to the article talk page. Besides that, 3 of the 4 regions aren't even mentioned in the article body. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 01:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to form consensus when it's common sense and minor changes which improve the article and bring it into standard with other Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what you want? Do you want citations when literally no citations are given in those sections because everyone already works on a sense of common understanding of reality? Is anyone disagreeing that Punjab and Khyber and the Vedic region described in the Rigveda as the "Sapta Sindhu" is anything other than what exists principally in Pakistan? Pakistan and Afghanistan in order of importance first, organized in order of relevance just as in all decently written Wikipedia articles. You are arguing against bringing this article into Wikipedia standard. Also what 3/4 are you referring to? Windafarna (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to reorder them. Indian subcontiennt and eastern Iranian plateau is already clear. What are those other articles that follow this protocol of sorting on their presumed prominence anyway? I'm not going to repeat myself. Place your arguments on the article talk page, not here. Any more replies from you will be ignored. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 01:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, this is your last message because you clearly have zero reason to give. I'll have my say to finish this useless conversation off of course. Indian subcontinent and eastern Iranian plateau is unclear because of the reasons I've already given you. The eastern Iranian Plateau is right because it correctly situated Vedic in the very eastern fringes of that region, in Khyber and eastern Afghanistan. Vedic didn't exist in Azerbaijan of or Khuzestan of course, so it's clarified. Northwestern Indian Subcontinent claririfies that the language existed in the greater Indus region, which also includes parts of Khyber because what was called Gandhara is situated principally in that province. Simply "Indian Subcontinent' is misleading and erroneus, are you telling me that Vedic Sanskrit existed in the Ganges or Bengal or Tamil Nadu? Because that is the Indian Subcontinent for you. They have literally nothing at all to do with the Vedic period or even the Indus Valley Civilization at this point, everything existed within the broader Indus region and nothing related to it existed to the east or south. The Vedic region had more real world connection with Inner Asia and the Iranian Plateau, where they interacted with it's people and received horses from the "west" for their rituals. I'm nor sure why this is so bothering to you, but I sure can guess why.

In terms of the languages that follow relevancy, Balochi, Balto-Slavic, Brahui, Pashto (in terms of historical relevancy and continuity, which is what I argue), Dravidian, Flemish, Kalasha-mun, Persian, Tajik, Proto-Germanic (stating "Northern Europe" and not just Europe in general) etc. Also, the quote on your page by Abdul Kalam was him stealing it directly from Hitler "if you want to shine like the sun, first you have to burn like it". Bye. Windafarna (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binary search tree you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mhawk10 -- Mhawk10 (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Binary search tree you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Binary search tree for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mhawk10 -- Mhawk10 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiLinuz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:HTTP multiplexer, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Binary search tree you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Binary search tree for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mhawk10 -- Mhawk10 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiLinuz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "HTTP multiplexer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what ancient Vedic deity really means but generally something is only referred to as ancient if its extinct, worship of Indra is pretty common so it seems inappropriate to label it as such. As for the vedic part, its very repetitive as the vedas a a part of Hinduism, its like saying Allah is a quranic islamic god, its quite odd. Josepherino (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss the article content on the article talk page, not here. Thanks, --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilfreethinker (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey! In May, you removed an edit I made to the Weight-balanced tree page. I had added a link to an article on my personal site, and you removed the edit because of self promotion. I think that's fair, since it pretty much is self promotion.

That being said, the article I wrote contains a fair amount of details regarding weight-balanced trees as well as an implementation. Given that the wiki page doesn't contain any links to an implementation, and that would help in understanding the data structure, would you consider allowing the edit?

Sorry for the late response. I'm not too familiar with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unl256 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Self-promotion and linking unreliable sources not allowed in Wikipedia. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 14:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for clarifying the ruling! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unl256 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The article Binary search tree you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Binary search tree for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mhawk10 -- Mhawk10 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Naloxone, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:InnoDB Architecture used in MySQL database engine.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free 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 non-free 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:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. 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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:David Earl Nichols (academic).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free 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 non-free 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:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. 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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notice; I don't dispute the deletion (since he's still alive, I could just ask him privately for a free image for use in infobox). --WikiLinuz {talk} 08:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#File:African Girl, 1958 Expo.jpeg. Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz. It would be a big help is assessing this image's copyright status if you could possibly provide anymore details about it's provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:African Girl, 1958 Expo.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t care what your janky source says because the last person who tried to use a “source“ to justify cocaine having a “high potential for dependence“ literally just linked a “source” that itself conflated the terms addiction and dependence when they are completely different concepts. But that’s irrelevant anyways because it’s literally a pharmacological falsehood through and through. No source that says cocaine has a “high potential for chemical dependence” should ever be considered reputable. That’s not how stimulant work. Not meth, not anything. No stimulant on earth/known to man has a high potential for dependency, and the concept of “psychological dependence“ is a complete misnomer straight out of the 20th century. I don’t know why you think you can make such declarations on drug pages when you clearly know nothing about drugs. Dexedream (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you read English? I literally have a notice that states open the topic on the article's talk page for article content related disputes. I will not discuss content disputes here. --WikiLinuz {talk} 03:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:N-benzylphenethylamine-series-toxicology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the reversion you made to my edit on Aryanism was a mistake. It's improper to refer to Arianism as a legitimate Christian theology rather than a heresy. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:B0CC:D73D:A315:113A (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Arianism" is considered a heresy mostly by the mainstream Christian denominations today. But it is considered a form of Christian theology from an academic perspective. The term "heresy" might not even apply, as it presupposes agreement with a "correct" set of beliefs.

For further discussion, please open a topic on the article's talk page. I'll not discuss article content disputes here. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, please familiarize with WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You Removed Source Material for Religious views of Adolf Hitler You deleted a Whole article about Sikhs and Deleted Sourced Quote about Hinduism. You Also Added You own Unsourced Quote.And Did Spelling Errors.Kindly Undo The Edit you have done. @CanadianSingh1469 SikkaSingh (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Competency is required for contributing to Wikipedia, and your English is too poor to be contributing here. I suggest you take a step back and refrain from WP:BATTLEGROUND editing if you don't wanna get topic banned. --WikiLinuz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey stop making fake accusation and Don't threaten me to get me Banned. Undo your Edit. SikkaSingh (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I have Restored the Page Backed up with More sources please do not Delete them without Credible Sources Saying Otherwise. SikkaSingh (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to modify this article - I am happy to work with you and avoid conflict - it is an important topic and the current article does not reflect either PHARMA or FOOD aseptic processing - kindly advice me - many thanks in advance. BeingObjective (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please take article-content related discussion to the article's talk page. --WikiLinuz (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can do. BeingObjective (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)