User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7talk 01:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
All I/P articles are under 1RR Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
My edits have both introduced new material I thought was responsive to the edit summaries of others and do not constitute edit warring or reversions. (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Your first edit introducing brand new material was not a revert. However, all of the edits since then have been reverts because you've been restoring that material that was removed by others. That means you reverted twice, which means you violated WP:1RR on a page that is restricted to one revert per 24 hours. I'm not going to take any action, although notice the warning notice above. However, consider yourself warned now. Any edit that constitutes edit warring may be met with a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. And for the 1RR info. (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBPIA[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dhenupureeswarar Temple (Madambakkam)[edit]

Semiya payasam.jpg Payasam for you
Nice work of adding references and saving the article Dhenupureeswarar Temple (Madambakkam) at Afd. I will suggest you to create an account and enrich articles with your edits.
Redtigerxyz  Talk  18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yum! Thanks, it has turned into a labor of love. I cannot resist a temple shaped like the back of a sleeping elephant. That is too beautiful a metaphor. (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For endless patience with an editor whose work is being held up to unfairly rigorous scrutiny and who is being hurt at ANI by people who seem to fail to understand the basic tenets of Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think you are more worthy of this than I am. I do wish people would try more to work constructively with editors before just tagging their talk page and dragging them to noticeboard discussions. (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mink brigade has been accepted[edit]

Mink brigade, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kerr (loyalist)[edit]

Compass Barnstar Hires.png The Guidance Barnstar
for providing reference to my comment Deunanknute (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad if I was helpful, though you pretty much had covered it by pointing to the Wikimedia Foundation. (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ukamaka Olisakwe has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ukamaka Olisakwe was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed ( is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Thanks XLinkBot. I had actually moved that wordpress link from out of the article text into the external links section because of its dodgy character, but let it be gone. (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

David Wetzel (historian)[edit]

Hello 24.151. You may be inconvenienced by the semiprotection which I just applied. On reflection, you are probably not the article subject, but another IP is probably him. We need him to confine himself to his registered account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you kindly added book and their reviews, could you please remove the COI tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwetzel30 (talkcontribs) 23:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The "semiprotection" referred to above precludes my ability to edit the article. As a general matter, I avoid the drama often involved in removing subjectively based tags. In any event, your choice of username inevitably gives rise to an "apparent" conflict of interest. See WP:APPARENTCOI. (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Self trout for wall of text at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_1#File:The_Dress_.28viral_phenomenon.29.png[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Self-trout

You deserve this[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.svg The Original Barnstar
Extraordinary work on providing enough information to rescue Poor Act 1697. Wikipedia needs more people who can contribute to legal history articles. Thank you for your work. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I am very glad if I was able to locate some sources that started pointing this in the right direction. I've been enjoying reading up on the history of the poor laws. Along those lines, you have gone and created a terrific history of this one while I've been at the beginning of the gathering sources stage. It has been a pleasure working with you in building an encyclopedia. (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article restored[edit]

I am contacting you in connection with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sided Amphora 63.1515, in which an editor using this IP address took part. I closed the discussion as "delete", but an editor has now contacted me, providing new sources. All but one of the sources are not available to me, so I cannot comment on their content, beyond the fact that they show that a larger number of scholarly works mention the amphora than was shown to be the case in the deletion discussion. However, I have obtained a copy of the other one of those sources, and I believe it significantly changes the situation from that which existed at the time of the AfD discussion. (It is available at if you have JSTOR access.) Because I believe that this information significantly increases the amount of evidence of notability, I have recreated the article, but of course anyone who disagrees is free to take it back to AfD. I am informing everyone who took part in the discussion. The article is at Two-handled amphora (Boston 63.1515), having been moved from the original title given in the AfD page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about the talk page of the article. I have done what you suggested. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Change to item 10 of NFCI[edit]

Any clarification you can provide about the change made to item 10 of WP:NFCI would be appreciated at WT:NFCC#Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Thanks for the notification. I've commented at the talk page. (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)