User talk:Mycelium101

File permission problem with File:Sangoma Dancing in Celebration of his Ancestors.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sangoma Dancing in Celebration of his Ancestors.jpg, which you've sourced to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150103141238759&set=a.10150103134783759.279028.704413758&type=3&theater^{[dead link]}. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sangoma[edit]

Fine job there - keep it up. Wizzy…☎ 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sangoma for GA?[edit]

Congrats on your great work on the sangoma article. It's great to see African topics get more detailed treatment. Would you consider nominating it for Good Article status? I'd be happy to review it, and I think it could meet the standards with a few minor tweaks. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Traditional Healers of South Africa[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Traditional Healers of South Africa, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sangoma. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Traditional Healers of South Africa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zulu and Xhosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Traditional healers of South Africa[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Traditional healers of South Africa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Traditional healers of South Africa[edit]

The article Traditional healers of South Africa you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Traditional healers of South Africa for things which need to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the issues I raised. I hope to have this finished by Monday night HST at the latest. I may have some additional questions. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not going to happen. Let's try tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining close paraphrasing[edit]

Hi. I'm afraid the Traditional healers of South Africa article you contributed to has parts which are very closely paraphrased from "Collaboration with traditional healers in HIV/AIDS prevention and care in sub-Saharan Africa - A literature review". This can be a problem under both our copyright policies and our guideline on plagiarism.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following: The source says:

In 1994, the WHO offered further observations and direction regarding traditional healers, suggesting that upgrading their skills made more sense than training new groups of health workers, such as village health workers.

The article says:

In 1994, the World Health Organisation (WHO) offered a number of observations and guidelines regarding biomedical health providers collaborating with traditional healers, suggesting that upgrading the traditional healers skills made more sense than training new groups of health workers.

This is an example; there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:John_Lockley. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Specifically, posting personally identifiable information of others in an attempt to gain leverage in a discussion is a violation of our policy on harassment. Do not repost that content. L Faraone 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faraone, I really hope you give the same caution to CorbieVreccan who has accused Mycelium101 of bias, even after Mycelium101 has clearly stated on the article talk page that they have no conflict of interest in this regard ([1] [2]). Helen Online 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eish ! ;-) Mycelium101 (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zulu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yes Sir, I Will, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2016[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

Recent research: One study encounters critique of its ethics from Wikipedians; another critiques the ethics employed by Wikipedia

Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other administrators: I have emailed oversight for a block review. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mycelium101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking admin might be too personally involved and not acting objectively Mycelium101 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This may or may not be true, but you have to explain why your block is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2016 (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.

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).

Mycelium101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking admin might be too personally involved and not acting objectively Mycelium101 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The rationale for the block stands to examination. Personal attacks are a valid reason for the block. You've been warned before about this. [3] Pigman☿/talk 22:54, 12 September 2016 (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've taken over this block. As Pigman mentioned, you were previously warned for posting the exact same links. Posting previously-suppressed content is explicitly forbidden by WP:OUTING. L Faraone 03:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou LFaraone - I have emailed you privately. Can you please let me know if you are not in receipt of my email. Mycelium101 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Received and replied. L Faraone 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mycelium101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the reason for the block and where I violated this policy. The content that I posted will not be posted publicly again. In future, I will err on the side of caution when it comes to matters like this. Apologies for the disruption. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No response from editor in over a week. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:50, 24 September 2016 (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.

@LFaraone: As the allegedly inappropriate material have been oversighted, and communication between this editor and yourself has been via e-mail, what would you recommend as a response to the latest unblock request?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my 2 cents here, I think this editor needs to avoid interaction with CorbieV in the future. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony.bradbury: I think I'd agree with Doug Weller. Aside from that, the email discussion provided a plausible explanation as to why this reoccurred; I possibly could've been more clear (or followed up by email) in my 2014 note as to what content I was referring to. L Faraone 04:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My interest on editing as an SME is solely on providing a more balanced, educational and informative understanding of African Spirituality and how it has developed and evolved in contemporary culture, in particular to Southern Africa. My edits are neutral and almost entirely referenced, if not entirely referenced. Aside from the odd dabbling in music genres that influenced me heavily growing up in apartheid South Africa [4], I am quite content to stay in the framework of editing articles that relate to African Spirituality and traditional healing. CorbieV's interests seem to be primarily in Native American, Celtic traditions & US related issues, which I don't have any interest in editing, so if we can respect each others boundaries and fields of expertise, I am sure we both can avoid interacting and future clashes. Mycelium101 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a two-way street. Only your behaviour has been inappropriate, only you are being asked to avoid interaction at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Mycelium101. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]