User talk:Poor Yorick

Replaceable fair use Image:Bookadler.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bookadler.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Fear_Trembling_Cover.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Fear_Trembling_Cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Garion96 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA roster page.

As you were the one who requested the protection on the TNA roster page, may I ask that you allow it to be edited again.

With a page like that, it needs to be able to be edited to keep it up to date.

Here are some reasons why:

1. Wrestlers coming and going

2. Titles changing hands

3. New names/gimmicks for wrestlers

I know some editors go hog wild over there, but there's no reason that responsible editors shouldn't be able to work on it to keep it up to date.

Vjmlhds 05:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Benedict.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Benedict.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UMLUSE.PNG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:UMLUSE.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either/Or

I have conducted a reassessment of this article's GA status. I have placed the reassessment on hold as there are some points to be addressed at Talk:Either/Or/GA1#GA_Reassessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy image

I think it's excellent that you changed the images on that philbar thing. I had to laugh at my own bias revealed by those old white guys. :) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schemelists.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Schemelists.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Søren Kierkegaard

I have nominated Søren Kierkegaard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record - Heidegger

I don't think I continued the content dispute onto the 3rr page. I did respond to the serious accusation that I was trying to scrub any reference to Heidegger's links to the Nazis. I devote a fair amount of my time to preventing Far Right POV edits on various UK related pages and I find the attempt to throw the Nazi-apologist label at me deeply insulting. As far as I am concerned once I got to the point (after 7 reverts by Julian) of deciding that enough was enough and made the 3rr report I have left the article alone pending resolution. If you think I shouldn't have responded fair enough, all advise appreciated. --Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heidegger

Hello Poor Yorick. From a comment by you on one of the pages, I had the impression you were waiting for some other admin to decide if any blocks should be issued due to the war on this article. If this was not the case, I apologize. Based on the result of WP:AN3#User:Jonathansamuel reported by User:Snowded (Result: 1 week) it may be possible for you to consider lifting the protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the unblock request.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Hello. This is user jonathansamuel. I have been blocked for 1 week. I am logging in this one time from a wifi hotspot because my IP has also been blocked. I ask that you keep the freeze on the Heidegger article until I am able to comment on the Heidegger article on its Talk Page. I cannot do that now because of my one week block.

There are a number of constructive points I have to make which would prevent degradation of the article from its excellent 1/24/10 state, and these points are best discussed prior to unfreezing the article.

The current schedule is to unfreeze the Heidegger article in two weeks. Since my block only lasts for one week, that would give me one week in which to make my constructive comments. 152.179.45.86 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is user jonathansamuel again. I have posted a comment on the Heidegger Talk Page. I ask that you please review it before reaching any decision regarding the relative merits of the competing texts presented by users KD Tries Again and Snowded. 64.241.37.140 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Jonathansamuel not to evade his block. Since there is no WP:Deadline, any points which Jonathan needs to make can be made after his block expires. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen it, but we have JS back on an edit war (5rr) as well as block evasion. I advised Ed here but we might want to semi-protect. --Snowded ^TALK 08:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in his exchange at the end of the Heidegger Talk Page with KT Tries Again, Snowded appeared to agree with KT Tries Again's statement that the Biography section would include either a quote or a title (same thing) from Heidegger praising Nazism. KT Tries Again even provided an example of such a quote/title. However, Snowded then violated that agreement and modified the Biography section in a way which removed the existing quote from Heidegger's proclamation and did not replace it with another quote or title. 96.240.143.90 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that UserVobo changed at least dozen instances of "Nazism" to "National Socialism," including the reference in the 1st paragraph. UserVobo's actions are in complete violation of what was agreed to by all, including Poor Yorick. 96.240.143.90 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the count for the past 24 hours for reverts to the identical content by named editors: Snowded 3; UserVobo 2; mtevfrog 2. Please note that 3rr may soon apply in this instance, and all violators should be sanctioned in a consistent manner. Note that Wikipedia took no action in a formal complaint against mtevfrog which showed he had produced four reverts to identical content in a 24 hour period. Formally complaining about 3rr rules is pointless if administrators ignore, without comment, the complaint. The administrator who reviewed the complaint against mtevfrog didn't deny that mtevfrog had violated 3rr. He simply stated, without comment, that no obvious action was warranted. 96.240.143.90 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected Martin Heidegger

Hello Poor Yorick. I have semiprotected the article due to an editor using an IP to evade his block. If you wish, you can adjust the semi as you think best. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now fully protected for one month. I left a note on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Kierkegaard

Hello, I was going to check out the prose of Søren Kierkegaard to make sure it meets 1a. Is it ready for the check, in your opinion? Are you doing further work on sourcing and other matters? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schemelists.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Schemelists.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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Entertainment

Wikipedia:WikiProject Entertainment, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Entertainment and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Entertainment during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Honey nut cheerios.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Honey nut cheerios.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pop Tate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pop Tate 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/Pop Tate until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 08:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Iga supermarket (Vancouver, BC).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Iga supermarket (Vancouver, BC).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png

A file you uploaded, File:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rules of Acquisition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rules of Acquisition 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/Rules of Acquisition (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chancellor place.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Opensociety.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Opensociety.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dukat (Star Trek) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dukat (Star Trek) 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/Dukat (Star Trek) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Weyoun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weyoun 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/Weyoun until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Willard Van Ormand Quine

A tag has been placed on Willard Van Ormand Quine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SzMith randir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 16:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Van Ormand Quine listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Willard Van Ormand Quine. Since you had some involvement with the Willard Van Ormand Quine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SzMith randir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of Wolf 359

The article Battle of Wolf 359 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is almost entirely in-universe. No evidence that this fictional battle has attracted significant attention from third-party sources beyond those devoted to covering Star Trek-related material.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonIago (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Wolf 359 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Wolf 359 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/Battle of Wolf 359 (2nd nomination) 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. DonIago (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Weyoun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weyoun 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/Weyoun (2nd nomination) 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Presocratics

Template:Presocratics has been nominated for merging with Template:Ancient Greek schools of philosophy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Kierkegaard, Wikipedia reviews of works" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kierkegaard, Wikipedia reviews of works. Since you had some involvement with the Kierkegaard, Wikipedia reviews of works redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Kierkegaard, Wikipedia reviews of works" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kierkegaard, Wikipedia reviews of works. Since you had some involvement with the Kierkegaard, Wikipedia reviews of works redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 17:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of School of thought

The article School of thought has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced for years

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of School of thought for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article School of thought 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/School of thought 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.

Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]