User talk:PDMagazineCoverUploading

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sinclair Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Covid19amazon.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Covid19amazon.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.

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) 01:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Pimpernelandrosemary.png

The file File:Pimpernelandrosemary.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious 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.

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) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you!

Mattcataco2 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not sure what it's for but a kitten is always nice :) PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating The New Yorker

The New Yorker did not respond to me and I never followed up myself on other leads, but THANK YOU for FREEING EUSTACE. 🙏🦋🧐🎩 Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it! Updating book/magazine covers every January 1 is one of my favorite things to do on Wikipedia. You might notice our book covers from 1925 have had their fair use templates replaced with public domain templates :) Also added New Yorker covers to Ilonka Karasz and Garrett Price.PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Question 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maine Question 1. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have opened a thread about you at WP:AIN. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [1] HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to rephrase that: you will be indefinitely blocked if there is further poking of other editors or edit warring. You must get consensus on article talk when an addition to an article has been challenged. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: it happened again[2]. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Be careful what you say. You're going to be banned and I don't want that to happen. Please, just reread what you tell people and think, "will I get banned for this?" because you're on your final warning. Good luck. Mwiqdoh (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Options for adding copyright dates and expiration

English Wikipedia has recommendations including WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY which advise against publishing information from databases or citing database results. However, this sort of content and activity is welcome at Wikidata where there is capacity to manage database information. Reasons for the difference include that for Wikipedia the conversion of data to original prose is impossible to monitor, whereas Wikidata has automated processes for importing and checking vandalism to database edits. I appreciate your enthusiasm for talking about copyright. Here is an example, but if you go talk with others there, they may suggest a more standardized way to do this.

Patterson-Gimlin film (Q2902398)

Consider how to collaborate with colleagues here and how to recognize when a conflict includes challenging years of precedent, as compared to individual judgement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Last year I lashed out at another user over a disagreement with extremely vicious and unacceptable personal attacks. At the time I was suffering from severe mental health issues, though I recognize this is not an excuse, merely an explanation. If unblocked I'll avoid mentioning copyright on pages and stick to adding the many, many magazine covers I've uploaded to Wikipedia articles about their relevant subjects; I won't contest any reversions. If not unblocked, I'll accept that decision - I went way over the line and I'm content to continue adding to Wikimedia Commons. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't just about your personal attacks, but your threats to edit war. We don't want you to not contest anything if you have a reason based in Wikipedia policy to do so. We want you to be able to work through these disagreements with other editors in a civil manner and achieve a consensus. This is a collaborative project and you cannot just avoid collaboration completely. It is good that you recognize that your personal attack was grossly unacceptable, (I might suggest, but not require, that you apologize to the user directly) and I'm sorry to hear about your difficulty. I think there is a possibility of unblocking here, but we need to know how you will handle disputes going forward, because they will come up eventually. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I will speak to this users good contributions and collaborations. If they engage in the mediation process and commit to friendly behavior then I think they should get another chance with an unblock. PDMag - 331dot seems willing to review you if you say more about past disputes and your plan to avoid future ones. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]