User talk:Kurzon

${\displaystyle -\cdot \cdot \cdot -}$

I have had to "undo" your deletion. Please do not simply delete referenced content without an explanation -- it appears from this talk that you've been asked previously to refrain from doing that. Thank you. Croessus the king of lydia (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Scorpion frog sajjad jafari.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 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Scorpion frog sajjad jafari.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needed curating, but that is not the same as acting as its custodian. The following past edits are particularly questionable:

1. your deletions of properly referenced statements,
2. your unreferenced original research,
3. your additions of off-topic information gleaned from other WP articles.

The innumerable individual changes give the impression of editorial incompetence; the invitation to recommend the article for Good Article status is uncalled for and deluded. I am also unhappy at your deletion of your talk page history, rather than archiving it.

Rather than bringing the matter up on the Talk page, or inviting Admin comment, I decided to come here first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetpool50: You could at least tell me whether I've improved anything. Kurzon (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Particles magnetism.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) 01:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:JJ Thomson exp1.gif 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) 01:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurzon

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username North8000 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, B-bar (Morse code), should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-bar (Morse code).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bolt Action (wargame) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of significance or of notability

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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Scorpion and the Frog 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Scorpion and the Frog 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Scorpion and the Frog you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: A lot of your point seemed strangely petty. Like nitpicking. You didn't find any deep issues with the article. 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove illustrations of items that are directly referenced in the text. You have done this twice, removing the only illustration of a klappvisor, and more recently the only illustration of a fixed bavier and an unattached plate gorget. Are some images less than ideal? yes, but we are limited by what is available on Wikimedia. In covering a subject with many esoteric terms and little-known physical aspects, relevant coverage in illustrations is a high priority. Urselius (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gilbert Roberts (British Royal Navy officer), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WH40K Eldar Guardians.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurzon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Military wargaming".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have seen your recents edition in the article. First, I think the terms aren't correct. As other user told you, the factual term is staged or scripted. Mock combater, parody... aren't neutral, looks like a anti-pro wrestling article.

Also, sources. The first section is sourced. Not described as mock combat, but performance art instead. I know, pro wrestling it's several things: its a theatre, it's a scripted fight, a choreogaphy. But your editions hasn't sources to support your claims. I included the sources and some parts of your editions, I think the current is a good approach. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Uh, is English your first language? Because your page makes me think you're Spanish. Mock combat and parody ARE neutral terms. I don't know where you got the idea that they are biased. Methinks you don't know English so well. Kurzon (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, English isn't my first language. As I said, User MPJ-DK told ""mock" is not neutral - staged is factual", which it's true. Most sources call wrestling staged or scripted. Sources in the lead say "performance". Also, Parody has negative connotations. Wikipedia says "is a work which is created to imitate, make fun of or comment on an original work." I prefer "pro wrestlers perform" or "pro wrestlers have characters", which is more neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: And how is "parody" offensive? This is all theater, and not meant to be taken seriously. Kurzon (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurzon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "WATU".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't "fix" br tags. <br>, <br />, and <br/> all work exactly the same, so all you're doing is cluttering up people's watchlists. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: It's about the color coding in the editor. Kurzon (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sufficient reason to clutter up my watchlist, and those of other editors, with changes that are unnecessary but have to be checked out. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I have a right to make improvements to Wikipedia. Learn to live with it. Kurzon (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely LOVE your reverted comment: "Oh piss off you selfish twit." So for your singular convenience, you want to inconvenience countless other Wikipedia editors who have to check your edits changing "br" tags. Who, precisely, is being "selfish" here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Well, perhaps I was being too harsh, but I was not trying to inconvenience anyone. On the contrary, I was trying to make things more convenient for anyone who uses color-coding in the editor. Kurzon (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. With this edit you deletion specifically referenced information without providing any explanation. Please don't do that, you know you shouldn't be deleting referenced info. There is a talk item on the talk page about it. It's clear you disagree with this statement for some reason, though it's been in the article for many years and is now very clearly referenced. Please take to the talk page if you have any issues on this, though not sure why you would. Canterbury Tail talk 10:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Fine, have it your way, I'll leave it as it is. Maybe I can get in touch with Rick Priestley again and he could clear some things up. It's not a big deal anyway. Kurzon (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is Wikipedia, WP:VERIFIABILITY. We have references that state that it's based on WFB, and the rules (the game portion) are very clearly based on WFB (and considering Priestly wrote both of them...). If you have references to the contrary then that's fair, but we'd need references. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Ghost (1990 film) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the proper reference for the things that you type such as example of dalton experiment?Agus Damanik (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Resurrection Man 1.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you search about the political ideas of those people during the reigns of Alexandre II, Alexandre III, and Nicholas II, and edit it? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.68.104 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1005889053 Take a look at this IPs edit. I think they are vandalizing but you know the article better than I Slywriter (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kurzon,

I just had to revert an edit of yours to the article The Scorpion and the Frog (diff). You removed "written in Sanskrit" and put quotation marks in a blockquote template. The latter is discouraged by the Manual of Style, and for the former, you didn't provide an edit summary explaining why you removed that text. In future, I recommend mentioning in edit summaries your rationale for removing text or other article material. This will mean you won't get reverted by someone who didn't understand why you did it, as was the case here. Please feel free to edit the page again to re-remove the text with an edit summary explaining your rationale. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the text again without providing an edit summary. Please could you at least explain here? Thank you, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DesertPipeline: It didn't seem important. Kurzon (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this subject myself, so I think the best idea would be to ask on the talk page for the article whether or not it is important. I'd also advise leaving the text in the article until it can be determined whether or not it is actually important. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DesertPipeline: I'm the one who put that text there in the first place. I changed my mind. I decided that the language of the Panchatantra isn't important in this context, just the location. If I talk about this on the Talk page I guarantee nobody will chime in because I am the only editor working on this article. Kurzon (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair. In future though, please do consider leaving edit summaries, especially when removing article material – it usually makes the process of improving Wikipedia go more smoothly :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warhammer 40,000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kill Team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:WH40K Ork Nob.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 12:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurzon, I recently reverted an edit you made at Joseph Stalin in which you removed content without explanation. I want to add my voice to the others I see above in asking that you please use edit summaries, especially when removing content from articles. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Black Like Me Griffin.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kill Team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Stop uploading copyrighted images that you do not own the copyright to onto Wikipedia. A load were just deleted for copyright violations, and you literally just re-uploaded them. They're being deleted again. Do NOT upload images that you do not own copyright to to Wikipedia, and once something has been deleted for blatant copyright violation do not reupload it again. Just because you found an image on the internet doesn't mean it isn't covered by copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And note, even if GW says they don't consider photos of their models to be copyright violations, you're still uploading photos taking by other people and they own the individual copyrights to those photographs (not the models) and its those copyrights that you're violating by uploading these random photos from the internet, not GWs. Canterbury Tail talk 17:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: I totally asked these guys for permission. It's not my fault if they did not send confirmation emails to OTRS! Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're uploading them with a statement of it being your own work, which they clearly aren't. If they have given permission then great, but until that's sorted you can't keep uploading images deleted for copyvios. Canterbury Tail talk 18:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you a longer explanation on why I reverted you recently at this article. I thought you were jumping the gun. We've appealed for input and should wait a reasonable time for comments. If none come within (say) a month, then the next move would be to widen the appeal.

Meanwhile, I've been looking at allied fables. You're right about the possible connection with The Frog and the Turtle. In the 18th century translation of the whole Pilpay/Bidpai work (and we're looking principally for English language connections) the context in which the fable is told is concerned with ingratitude for benefits. And Ashliman groups the Bidpai story with Aesopic analogues. All three of those cited, however, have a moral suggesting that providential justice is at work, which is very different from the moral drawn from the scorpion and the frog. So even though there is an admitted connection between these stories, the conclusion drawn from them can be different.

As I said before, I was impressed by the fact that no less than three editors since 2010 have seen an additional connection with the older Aramaic fable of the scorpion leaving the ferrying frog unharmed. I've now found a Jewish source that does make a connection with the Aesopic story. Unfortunately, the Google Books pages break off just where the author is about to make the connection plainer. If you could find a copy of the book and look it up, that would be useful. The story is obviously concerned with Divine justice, which allows a suspension of natural law (the scorpion abstains from stinging the frog) when a higher aim (the punishment of an unjust man) is in view.

What we have, then, is a series of disconnections. Aesop/Bidpai have a scorpion and different creatures and are concerned with punishment of ingratitude. Their stories are bracketed on either side with reinterpretations of a frog and scorpion partnership coloured by very different cultures. Orson Welles tells the story cynically, in a 20th century atheistic context; Middle Eastern Jews, with a mindset (held in common with Islam) that nothing happens outside the Divine purpose, use the story in the context of what Ashliman calls "unnatural partnerships".

Since we now have a source that sees some connection between the stories (Welles' apart), I hope you'll agree that it would be a good idea to keep mention of the Jewish story in the article but not add comment (or my new source) while we wait to see if we can get any further comment. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hunch that if you searched some database of old folk tales, you will find a lot of hits for frogs and scorpions, and the fables will be of all kinds of things. Best to stick to the really strong connections. Kurzon (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Partisans 1941, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Warhammer logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. @Kurzon please stop changing Justice League. Please revert your edits. The original article was much easier to read and contained more information useful to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.227.232 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This person has repeatedly removed important information from the Justice League article. They has also done so to many different articles. Multiple warnings have been issued. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@138.88.227.232: Oh I know all about getting blocked for edit-warring. I used to be quite a bad boy. I don't think you've got a case yet, particularly since you're an unregistered user and nobody else is taking part in this argument. Register an account for yourself and get some experience under your belt. Kurzon (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Space Marine Concept Art 1990.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Keilis-Borok book cover.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for reverting your latest edit on the article Right-wing authoritarianism but you didn't provide any summary for it, and the same applies to most of your edits on that article. Since unexplained massive edits are very frequent, they could be interpreted by other users as disruptive rather than in good faith; please provide edit summaries for your edits in order to avoid further misconceptions in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: I put that table there in the first place, and then realized it doesn't belong in that particular article because it doesn't use the right metric. Kurzon (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Lev Nitoburg, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurzon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Partisans 1941, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurzon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lev Nitoburg, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gold foil conclusions.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. Thank you. ✗plicit 11:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tau Cadre Fireblade Colasanti.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. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GamesWorkshopCopyrightPolicy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Whpq (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WH40K logo 2020.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Eldar Guardian WH40K.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 of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sicilian Mafia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not delete properly sourced substantial sections without discussing this in the talk page first. I have had to "undo" your deletion. Please do not simply delete referenced content without an explanation -- it appears from this talk that you've been asked previously to refrain from doing that. Thank you. DonCalo (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Atom has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurzon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Lev Nitoburg".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are two people, meaning an WP:ENDASH is required, not a hyphen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: But look at the URL. It is ugly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiments Kurzon (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The url is irrelevant. Also, I don't know what browser you use because mine shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Marsden_experiments Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: But the hyphen and endash look the same. Why is it important to use endash? Does a hyphen mess up some algorithm? Kurzon (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The endash is longer and we are speaking of two distinct things (MOS:ENBETWEEN). A hyphen is shorter and does not indicate two distinct things. Lennard-Jones is one person name Lennard-Jones. Geiger–Marsden are two people, Geiger and Marsden. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commandos clone has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commandos-style video games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cycle is BRD. The D is missing. Take it to the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Wanted to chat a bit more about that copyright. United States works enter copyright every year on January 1, and they do not enter on a rolling basis through the year. You're right that they expire on January 1 and not on December 31.

In 2023, works from 1927 entered the public domain following a full 95 years worth of time since that year. Since Superman was first introduced in a work published in 1938, he will have to wait a full 95 years after 1938 to become public domain in the United States. Using the difference of 96 between 1927 and 2023, this means that Superman would enter the public domain in 2034 in the United States. I didn't want to just revert your edit, and I appreciate abiding by the citation.

With all that said, what are your thoughts on changing the copyright date to January 1, 2034 with a note for American copyright? MonkeyBBGB (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Professional wrestling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Browning.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Professional wrestling. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. GaryColemanFan (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice since the OP did not notify you, as they needed. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Professional wrestling vandalism/edit-war/bias ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, rather than simply reverting my edit, please read my comment in the discussion section of the article and help re-write the intro with me. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Warhammer 40,000, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered a source for the story in an American magazine dated 1939 - It's only a snippet but the variant of the story is unlike any other you've discovered. It might be a clue to how Orson Welles came to know of it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lead. I've asked Google to release the full document as it might be in the public domain. I won't update the article until I've had a good look. Kurzon (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetpool50: I contacted the Wyoming government and that book actually was published in 1987. Google miscategorized it. Kurzon (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I should not have trusted Google's dating, their errors there are notorious. I was once on the trail of an earlier version of a nursery rhyme and thought I'd found a late 17thC ref, only to discover the book was published a century later than what Google claimed! Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for references before 1933 you ought to do it in Russian (scorpion = скорпион, frog = лягушка). I haven't found anything myself. Kurzon (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I leave that particular frog-pond to you! Mine was a chance discovery...but we still have to establish where Orson Welles came across the story, and that might be an English language source. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sicilian Mafia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please do not revert relevant and properly referenced information. You don't own this article. DonCalo (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sicilian Mafia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. This is not the way to find a solution to deal with the issue. Please stop removing relevant and fully referenced content. DonCalo (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCalo: Don't act like a little child. Kurzon (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I noticed that you made a comment on your talk page #December 2023 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refrain from personal attacks. DonCalo (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Professional wrestling shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 18:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this to be a final warning. You're edit warring against a consensus you were a part of. You've already had multiple users accuse you of WP:OWN, and you've been blocked from this page before. If you remove that word again I'm going to have to report this at WP:ANI. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Atomic Theory. Please use edit summaries to briefly explain your reasoning. If you are just rewording it's not very important (or hard, just "reword"). But when you move or delete stuff its hard to decide what you are up to. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, glad to know other editors care about this article. Kurzon (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon, this is not enough of a response. After so many years of requests to use edit summaries, what's it going to take? Should we get the review of the community at a place like ANI? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I invite you to share your opinion and rationale for moving the page "Right-wing authoritarianism" to "Right-wing authoritarian personality." Please join the discussion at Talk:Right-wing_authoritarian_personality. Regards, Jcbutler (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Atomic Heart, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess those are the rules but isn't this a bit pedantic? We don't require citations for movie synopses, why should we require them for a game that any idiot can access and play? Kurzon (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd response, "that any idiot can access and play". I just undid your subsequent edits. Plot sections do not need citations, gameplay sections do. Also, please do not unnecessarily remove references. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit is better, it gives a more accurate description of the gameplay elements that gamers will understand. Kurzon (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and FMSky likely does as well. Polygon might call it a "BioShock-clone", but imagine the general reader reading the article on Atomic Heart: it makes more sense to call it a "first-person shooter with role-playing elements" to compare it with another game the general reader might not be familiar with at all. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please, follow WP:BRD. Take it to the talk page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Atomic Heart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Kurzon reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle -\cdot -\cdot \cdot --}$ Kurzon (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Talk_pages_project#Reply_tool. I can't reply to your comment on Talk:Rutherford scattering experiments because you did not sign the comment. Using Add Topic and the reply tool avoids accidentally missing a signature. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found it very upsetting that you deleted the section on Lichtman's other predictions, as they contained important details about his record (e.g. his 1984 and 2008 predictions coming 2 years before the elections, his 1988 prediction coming when Bush was 17% behind in the polls).

Wikipedia is meant to be an informational resource, not just something that lists contentious circumstances, and your edits removed a great deal of useful information.

I would like the original text restored, if you please. DanielXW1 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should go on the Talk page for that article but whatever.

There is nothing noteworthy to say about a predictions which went smoothly. Kurzon (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, there is. He made them 2 years before the fact in 84 and 08, and even though the polls were 17% against him in 88. That's information that would be difficult to look up otherwise, particularly the articles cited. DanielXW1 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as I understand it, an edit like this one should give the page of origin per WP:COPYWITHIN. Not a big deal for me. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rutherford scattering experiments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coulombs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, you've been on Wikipedia for 19 years and have amassed more than 20,000 edits; surely you are aware that content needs to be reliably sourced and that unsourced content about living people is absolutely not allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

As seen here, there is a 65.3% possibility of copyvio. So please do not remove the template until the copyvio is removed. Thank you. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's how these things work. Kurzon (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding unsourced content. With your tenure you are clearly aware about the requirements for material to be sourced. If you repeat such edits that I've recently undone I will escalate the matter. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was reading in A. Pais Inward Bound about Bohr's first work in Rutherford's work and I realized these three paragraphs (on page 195) related to various discussions we have had. Perhaps you will be interested.

The first paragraph describes Charles Galton Darwin's theory calculations using Rutherford's nucleus and electrons distributed uniformly throughout the atomic volume. He says the result allows the number of electrons per atom (n) can be deduced from absorption of alpha particles with distance, given a known atomic radius. From Geiger/Marsden data he concludes that n is between 1 and 1/2 times the atomic weight. Note that this is a theory for inelastic scattering, so the model is different from elastic scattering.

• Darwin, C.G. (1912) A theory of the absorption and scattering of the a-rays. Phil. Mag. (6), 23, 901

The second paragraph in Pais describes Bohr's alternative to Darwin's work, which includes the effect of electron binding. Bohr's model is similar to a model Thomson developed for beta rays, but Thomson viewed alpha particles as atom-sized and thus did not apply his beta ray model to alpha particles. Bohr shows his approach gives better agreement than Darwin's.

• N.Bohr Dr. phil. (1913) II. On the theory of the decrease of velocity of moving electrified particles on passing through matter , The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 25:145, 10-3

The third paragraph in Pais highlights a sentence in Bohr's paper:

"If we adopt Rutherford's conception of the constitution of atoms, we see that the experiments on absorption of a-rays very strongly suggest, that a hydrogen atom contains only one electron outside the positively charged nucleus."

This then is the point at which hydrogen is known to have one electron.

I'm unsure where/if this fits into articles so I'll just leave here ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]