User talk:WagePeace

Hello, WagePeace, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. Best regards, -- R.Schuster (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookies and guidance, R. -- WagePeace (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:LastMauMau cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LastMauMau cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added non-free use rationale, as requested. -- WagePeace (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Jehovah as the Devil

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Devil, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above explains removal of the new section I had posted. I did additional research, rewrote the section to meet encyclopedic guidelines, reposted it, and added comments on talk page. -- WagePeace (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of God as the Devil section of Devil

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Devil, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Devil was changed by WagePeace (u) (t) deleting 11185 characters on 2009-03-21T17:26:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been an automated action unconnected to anything about the content. Perhaps it took place because I had changed a fairly lengthy section to a fairly short one, which the bot may have feared was a vandalous deletion. I simply clicked on undo for the bot's action on the article's history page and that seems to have resolved this matter. -- WagePeace (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; and cluebot will not re-revert anything. BTW please don't use horizontal lines - it confuses things with sections. -- Chzz ► 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag info

I'm a new user whose first article has been tagged. I went to as Template:Essay-like and Template:Weasel for info on the tags. The main question I had was to understand the process of resolving and ultimately removing the tags. At IRC help, I was directed to Wikipedia:TAGGING. It would have been helpful to have a link to that article on those pages about the tags.

For example, Template:Essay-like has a "Notes" section. It could be helpful to add a bullet there, such as:

For information on the use and removal of and disputes about tags, see Tagging pages for problems.

I suppose I could edit those two pages to add such a note, but it would probably be best for some automated process to add such a documentation link to all pages about tags.

Is there something further I should do about this, or just leave it to you experts to handle?

-- WagePeace (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Documentation is the talk page for the template that documents templates. Your question was misplaced, so I have moved it here. In the future, you can ask these questions at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You do have a fair question, and it is one that comes up frequently at the help desk. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Removing tags.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of talk pages

Hiya,

Just a friendly note to say, in future, please don't delete other users comments, or move them around, on an article talk page. It's not considered good Wikiquette to mess around with the comments of others, or even yourself. You can edit your own comments for minor typo's, spelling mistakes, etc, but not for anything else.

If you want to rescind comments, you should just put <s> at the start and </s> at the end of them, to ~~strike them out~~.

In this case, I can see that you just wanted to tidy things up, so I'm just telling you this for your future reference. I can see your intentions were good, but it does make it difficult to see what has happened - for example, that my comments were in response to a helpme request.

I'll have a look back over the history and see if I can sort it out;

In future, when adding comments, put it at the end of the section, or start a new section.

Sometimes you might like to reply to specific questions, which you should do by indenting with : like this;

Question? -- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response -- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2? -- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response -- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note signatures on the end of each, to make it clear who said what and when.

Hope this helps; I'll respond further to your questions on the article talk page.

-- Chzz ► 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments in Talk:God_as_the_Devil

One thing I want to mention here: Please consider changing the phrase, "the god of the Abrahamic Bible and its sequels. The idea that the Quoran and other works are a sequel to the bible is likely to be very offensive to a lot of people. To avoid contention, I suggest changing it ASAP. I would do the change myself, but I'm not sure of appropriate wording.

Best regards, -- Chzz ► 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if I changed "the god of the Abrahamic Bible and its sequels is ..." to "the god of the Bible, relevant in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theology, is ..."? -- WagePeace (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better; I'd go with that for now, and seek advice from the project folks - as I say, not my field; I wonder if Yahweh would cover it all; I'm not sure how directly relevant the bible is to Islaam and if the implication could be misconstrued. Caution advised; but I certainly think that the suggestion above is better, and would highly recommend changing to that, whilst thinking about further improvements. Cheers! -- Chzz ► 19:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WagePeace. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again -- Chzz ► 23:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC) ... and again :-) -- Chzz ► 01:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'======

The talkback banner above links to Chzz's talk page, which has an undated banner that seems to say he's mostly quit helping out on Wikipedia, and which does not have links to old contents of the page. The messages referred to in the banner can be seen in the talk page's history. -- WagePeace (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other user

Hello again.

Glad to see that discussions are taking place, and more input is being given.

Another user asked for help today, and coincidentally was thinking of creating an article on "God as a woman". I thought it might be mutually beneficial for you to make contact with them; Jamiejojesus (talk · contribs).

-- Chzz ► 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiejojesus (talk · contribs) didn't create God (male deity); they just edited it once. The user hasn't made any articles yet; they joined a few weeks' ago.

If you think that article should be deleted, you could nominate it; I'd suggest a prod. But it might be better to try and improve it or merge it into other articles, if there's anything salvageable.

Make sense? -- Chzz ► 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Burning in Hell.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Burning in Hell.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Burning in Hell.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Icestorm815 • Talk 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jung

I wonder if you've read Carl Jung's 'Answer to Job' - at least you may find this interesting, but also you may feel it could be mentioned in your article. It talks particularly of Satan as a character in the book of Job and posits that Satan may be a repressed or shadow of God. Calindreams (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LastMauMau cover.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Jack's Hair at Troubadour, December 4, 2010.jpg

The file File:Jack's Hair at Troubadour, December 4, 2010.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image of non-notable musician, no other discernible use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Jack Heldt, Newbury Park, CA, April 9, 2012.jpg

The file File:Jack Heldt, Newbury Park, CA, April 9, 2012.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image of non-notable musician, no other discernible use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of God as the devil for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article God as the devil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God as the devil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mr248 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of listings of US military actions moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of listings of US military actions. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because the subject matter is unclear (i.e., how is "military actions" defined?) and more references are needed. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I've added a section on the meaning of "military action" and moved the links for external sources to a new References section.

Your message seems to say that I have the option to move the page back to the article space instead of waiting for it to be reviewed. Can you tell me how to do that?

. WagePeace (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade:

Thinking about this more, I thought maybe what you meant by "move the page back" was to undo your move. When I first tried to do that, it said it couldn't do that because there were intermediate actions. So I went and undid the changes I had made and then tried to undo the move again. It then said I couldn't undo a move. So I don't know what to do now.

I have redone the revisions I made to address the issues you raised. Is this acceptable now? Can you reinstate the article, or tell me how to move it back?

Thank you

WagePeace (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WagePeace! You can find information about how to move a page on Wikipedia's "Moving a page" page. However, I would recommend submitting the page for review to get feedback from other editors. I have a general question about the main subject of the article. What do you mean by "list of listings"? Is this article intended to be a list of works, a list of all military actions done by the United States, or something different? To help prevent your article being nominated for deletion, I would recommend making the goal of the article clear. You may want to check out Wikipedia's guidelines for stand-alone list articles. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find it valuable to look at Timeline of United States military operations to see what information your article adds to the encyclopedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade:

It is not a list of works, and it is not a list of military actions. It is a list of lists of military actions. I called it a "List of listings ..." in order to not repeat the word "lists", but maybe I should have used the title "List of lists of US military actions". Would that be better?

I tried to explain in the first paragraph of the article that there are a number of different lists of military actions available from different sources and the actions they include differ in important ways. That's why it can be important for people to check and compare these different lists. The purpose of this article is to give people access to those different lists.

It appears that I did not succeed in explaining that clearly, but I don't know what else to say about this besides the explanation in the first paragraph.

The reason I tried to move it myself is that the submission process said it could take two months or more to be reviewed, and I was hoping I could get the article back in action before that. But I don't have a lot of experience here, so I'll do what you say. But I can't submit it now because I undid the change that created the Submit button. So, what should I do now?

WagePeace (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "lists of lists" generally refer to a page that lists other list articles (see WP:LISTOFLISTS for a brief explanation and Category:Lists of lists for examples). I'm going to reach out and see if there is someone a little more familiar with this area who might be able to provide more guidance. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade:

Yes, I thought "List of lists ..." might mean a list of Wikipedia lists, which is why I called it "List of listings ...". I look forward to hearing from the person you find for this.

WagePeace (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad'

Hello, WagePeace

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Klbrain, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad', for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:

Paragraph 2 simply says how the references were found. I didn't create or develop the information in the table. The information was created by the cited references. I thought it could be of interest to a reader how the references can be found. Would the article be acceptable if I remove paragraphs 2 and 3? That would provide all the important information of the article with references to where the information comes from.

WagePeace (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't follow your line of argument. There are two references on the page, and neither of them contains the table present on the page. It hence seems like the pages is a synthesis that amount to own research; that is, that in order to create the table you have had to search multiple databases and compare sources in order to generate the list. You've presented a method by which others could do this too, which amounts to the page also being a how to. Klbrain (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad'

Hello WagePeace, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad', should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad'.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]