User talk:Chreliot

Hi Christopher -, I just saw the article Henry Gleason and thought I would say welcome. I see you've been here before, but welcome anyhow! Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello again Christopher, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Welcome again Chris. I enjoyed the Gleason article; I discussed him briefly in the vegetation article also. I hope you can continue to contribute articles on the history of ecology and other topics.

Jeeb 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

No problem :) Glad you got that and weren't confused when you tried to login :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climax community

Already commented on the talk page. As I said, I think you did a good job, but there's one line that bothers me. Guettarda 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WGEliot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WGEliot.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by reverts

The following is retaliation from a vandal I reverted, who has subsequently been banned indefinitely. CHE 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from revert vandalism. It has been noted that you have repeatedly reverted articles where new information was added, with no more explanation aside from not being able to collaborate the information with Google. This is your first and last warning.--202.159.212.165 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your assertion, I do not believe that I have vandalized your edits by reversion. I will refrain from reverting your edits, but please read your talk page for my rationale for my reverts, which I believe were justified given available evidence.The explanation I offered was NOT merely that I was unable to corroborate the information online. Thanks. CHE 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked closely at http://www.imbewu.co.za/html/current_projects.htm , the URL cited on IMBEWU (which you have accused me of vandalizing because I reverted your additions). It contradicts what you have added to that page. Therefore it is silly to suggest that my reversion constitutes vandalism. CHE 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If you look closely at this press release (http://www.rogerfederer.com/data/downloads/en/mmimbewuvisit02_03_2005_eng_1.pdf), you will see the extent of their activities. In future, look for more areas of information than just the organization's website and the first few Google hits, especially if you are making accusations in a public forum. --202.159.212.165 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have looked closely at that press release and together with the organization's homepage, there is no evidence for 202.159.212.165's assertion that "The charity's main focus is finding and distributing cures for AIDS and facilitating in the exchange of used car parts." There is nothing about car parts. If that is, as you say, their main activity, surely it would be featured on their main activities page. The assesrtion is not only unsourced/not-verifiable, but also in contradiction with the available. At the very least, by policy such information should be sourced. So look: I reverted an unsourced, and apparently false, edit by an anonymous user who minutes earlier had added nonsense to another page, and who is not apparently able to offer any evidence for that assertion. Sure smells like that's vandalism I reverted. In any case, I added a citations-needed tag to that page, but I am done with you. CHE 03:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I appreciate the sincerity of your efforts with regards to the above matter. Wiki users deserve the quality articles and information that you are striving for. Best of luck with future edits. --202.159.212.165 03:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi CHE, I have asked the anon user to be more specific. In case, he is unable to do that, I will revert his tags atleast on Wikipedia and Microsoft. However, assuming good faith, I guess I will give him a couple of days, in case he is not online soon (Though I suspect someone else will revert the tags before then). -- Lost ^(talk) 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (Bot)

please note that Category:Philosophy of Science does not exist. that is why it was removed Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Category:Philosophy of science does, and it should have been changed to that. CHE 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess parrot

(Copied from User talk"SuperJumbo): Hey-the reason I hadn't shot the Princess Parrot nonsense on sight was that it had been put there by a nonsense-adding vandal subsequently identified by someone else as the General Tojo vandal, and once I started reverting his edits, he got angry and started issuing me vandalism warnings. Tired of being called a vandal for clearing out nonsense, I started just flagging his BS instead of removing it. Anyway, so I'm glad you fixed it. CHE 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Fair enough - there are some people on WP whose aim in what passes for a life is to make life difficult for good faith editors. I must admit my eyebrows shot skywards when I saw this stuff! --Jumbo 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Epistemology

Thanks for reminding me about this. I suggest you restore what you like and see what happens. I have no major objections. The trouble is that the only (arguably) non-partisan work on both schools of SE seems to be Remedios' book. And, as I he reminded me, he actually identifies three strands of SE. He is not, to my mind, right about this and his views have not been influential. But there is a danger that this article becomes WP:OR in its handling of this issue. As I read SE there are two distinct approaches: Fuller and Goldman. But Remedios wants to count Shapin and the Strong Programme as a variety of SE. I think that confuses an already difficult issue. But it's probably best just to have it out on the talk pages. My suggestions is to be bold. I'll be back at it in the new year. Looking forward to it.--Thomas Basboll 21:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for input

On the Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy article, or, more specifically, its deletion page.

Thank you. 271828182 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your contributions to the Afd. Best wishes, 271828182 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. David Tilman

Regarding this edit, from what I have heard, it's true that Tilman was born Titman; the anon probably is attempting to add material in good faith. Of course, it's uncited, and possibly apocryphal, so it doesn't belong in the article without a citation...but probably isn't vandalism either. Guettarda 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Davis

If it's as large as it was, I'm afraid that it divides the text too much and makes the article look less polished; on my screen, at least, it made a very unclean line-break. This may be a tad small - I'll enlarge it a bit - but I think it conveys the essence of the work decently enough. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Gallery of Modern Art

Hello! (am I doing this correctly?? I hope so!) I can't read the NY Times article for some reason but I will continue to try. If the article does say that she was the founder, it is incorrect to the best of my knowledge. That said, I will get a copy of the New York Times article to review the information to clarify Mrs. Lloyd's role. I am quite certain at the very least that the original Wiki entry was incomplete in that it did not mention either Mrs. Denney or Mr. Einstein at all(I believe he was missing too?). For over a year now I've been working in the archives of Mrs. Denney, one of the founders of the WGoMA, and I've been filing letters, notes, meeting minutes, fundraising items, newspaper articles and pictures, etc. having to do with the founding and opening of the gallery. One day, Mrs. Denney and I did an internet search for the gallery and othere things that she had been associated with on a lark and when she saw what had been written in this entry she asked me to make the changes if I could. I will take your comments back to her and ask her to explain as well...unfortunately, I don't know Mrs. Lloyd. To be continued! Thanks for pointing that out... and if you are the original poster thanks for making that entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hd4020 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FaustEdgeEdenPrairieMN.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FaustEdgeEdenPrairieMN.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 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called CHE. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name CHE~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

22:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

11:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chreliot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chreliot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Scott Circle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Circle 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/Scott Circle 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.

Sea Cow (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]