User talk:SafariScribe

Archives (Index)

2024/February 2024/March Archives/2024/April Archive 1 2024/April 2024/May

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Added as a courtesy because the user raising the matter at ANI hasn't done it. Neiltonks (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Neiltonks. I appreciate that. Otuọcha (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Doug Van Gundy on Who wants to be a millionaire.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Doug Van Gundy on Who wants to be a millionaire.jpg. 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. Whpq (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give What the Dead Men Say a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into What the Dead Men Say (novella). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Galobtter (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Josh Dickson (American political advisor).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Josh Dickson (American political advisor).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's talk 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. Whpq (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Samuel Ode.png

Thanks for uploading File:Samuel Ode.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's talk 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. Whpq (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanilla

Read angiosperm or pollination. Literally every flowering plant must be pollinated; the statement "Pollination is required..." is no more useful than "Sufficient sunlight is required..." Since you quoted something I missed, you should have removed this utterly worthless statement instead of merely undoing my error. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You probably may be new to Wikipedia. I will advise you begin with menial editing like grammar, correction et cetera than removals, etc. Adding pollination should not be specific/limited to hand-pollination whereas the source analysed artificial like bee & other animal pollination. Leaving the pollination as it was is deemed fit to bear both natural and artificial as the case may be. All the best. Otuọcha (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Audience scores are not allowed

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be harmful and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated harm may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As I clearly explained in my edit summary Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not allowed WP:UGC. You are being disruptive by restoring it. Stop.

Please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and properly explain your change with a meanngful edit summary. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Per discussion on your talk page. Removing other sources because there was user aggregated score like Rotten Tomatoes is vandalism and so to maintain the neutrality of the page needs reversion. Well per WP: UGC, the citation provided was for critics review and so I had no reason to remove same cited users reviews. All the best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You failed to say this, multiple times. You failed to provide a meaningful edit summary. You need to read the WP:SIMPLE rules again, all editors can benefit from returning to the simple basic principles of this encyclopedia project.

The user scores had to go. WP:UGC

You could have shown good faith by partially restoring the film review, but you failed to do that. The review was from a minor radio station, the critic does not seem to be noteworthy, if you want to restore it the WP:BURDEN would be on you to not just check that it merely had a reference but also that it was a noteworthy critic. You can still do that but do not restore it without checking first.

Do not go around accusing people of vandalism. It makes you look bad. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As this is your talk page you are welcome to remove the whole discussion once you have read. It is misleading to remove only one of my comments.

Having conducted a conversations with other editors on my talk page it is rich to complain about a comment on your talk page actually directed to you.

Now if you've finished bothering me, you can delete this whole thread. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I see this off WP: CIVILITY. I will say it becoming Casting aspersions from your side or even BURDENING ANOTHER. I didn't accuse you of "just" vandalism. Removing reliable piece as you did in the article claiming it was a small television station is not done anywhere. You only remove the user score aggregate site and leave other sources. Apart from that, I reverted all your edits to maintain neutrality and at the course of manually revering the aggregate decide first to answer all these questions of reversion and per revert to namespace already. Otuọcha (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You commented again so I will respond. You selectively deleted my comments which you should not do, and I strenuously object, per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Commenting on your talk page -- even if you strongly disagree with my comments -- is not vandalism.

You cast the aspersions first by accusing me of vandalism. I reverted a low quality edit with obvious problems and a clear edit summary explaining why. You repeatedly restored it without an edit summary to explain why. Another editor has told you that you were in the wrong. This is being civil, and I have been painfully careful to criticize only your actions and not your person. The WP:BURDEN is on editors who want to restore the material, and the original editor or you could have partially restored the review only if you believed it was good enough. You can still restore that critic if you want.

Per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS You are welcome to end and delete this whole thread when you're finished. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Little Blue Light

Of course it's not vandalism. Novy God is the Russian phrase for "New Year", and also designates the Russian New Year's Eve and New Year's Day celebration. Уж поверь. Я его праздную каждый год. 89.189.156.151 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Much better detailed. I have added it back and once more happy editing. Cheers! Otuọcha (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! 89.189.156.151 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning about recent change patrolling

Please take more care when patrolling recent changes. After seeing your rollback request, I did a quick survey of some of your recent edits and have serious concerns about your editing. Here is a handful of issues that I found:

• At U. L. Washington, you reverted this well-explained edit as "vandalism", and you re-added an inaccurate statement to the article. I have corrected it just now.
• (as noted in my response to your rollback request) At User talk:2409:4065:CB1:73E2:0:0:624B:DD04, you incorrectly claimed that adding unsourced or poorly cited words are considered vandalism and that Adding unsourced words to articles without citation [...] is clear vandalism, and reacted with hostility to an IP editor trying to explain to you about the erroneous reverts that you made at Tai folk religion, when the editor was just moving existing material around.
• At The Daleks, you characterized this edit as vandalism, when it clearly was not.
• At Great Flood of 1862, you characterized this edit as vandalism, when it clearly was not.
• At Bradley Riches, you characterized this edit as vandalism, when it clearly was not.

If you're not going to listen to the IP editors above, I hope you will listen to an administrator who is telling you to slow down, read Wikipedia:Vandalism carefully and in particular the section about what is not vandalism, and be more careful about how you label others' edits. I see you're using Ultraviolet for patrolling – please pay attention to their warning that you "are expected to have properly studied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prior to using Ultraviolet and expected to use Ultraviolet within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or risk being blocked from editing." DanCherek (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)