Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Abington Friends School has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abington Friends School was changed by Mosfetfaser (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893727 on 2014-02-01T10:36:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a request for editor assistance at this article and made what imo was beneficial edits, however I was undone by this robot - I made my edits again and they remain in the article - see for details

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abington_Friends_School&action=history

Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Great Reporters 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/The Great Reporters 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. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mosfetfaser,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Journalism, Ethics and Society should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalism, Ethics and Society .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. 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.

Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from URL. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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.

As a living person, there would need to be a justification of a particular "look" or "image" for which they were known and which they no longer comport (a la David Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust" period). Simply the fact that it might be difficult to obtain is insufficient reason to use a non free image.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my dispute of the above claim is at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Unambiguous_copyright_violation.3F

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#copyright_violation.3F

Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mosfetfaser. The image you uploaded is not freely licensed and so can only be used under a claim of fair use. (Note that "NC" Creative Commons licences are not free content!) But the usual interpretation of our non-free content criteria is that fair use does not apply to most images of living people, since it is usually possible, in principle, to obtain an alternative image which is freely licensed. If you want to include an image of Jeremy Hammond in an article, please obtain or produce one which is freely licensed. If you can make a convincing argument why this is absolutely impossible, or if you can demonstrate that File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg has some unique properties that make it irreplaceable for our purposes, then you can ask for the deletion of File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg to be reviewed. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i believe that the questions you asked on my talk page/other's talk pages have been answered above/on other users talk pages. The fact that it might not be easy to get a fully free use image is not sufficient. And there is nothing specifically encyclopedic about that particular image that makes its use qualify. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Unambiguous_copyright_violation.3F

Administrator User:RHaworth accusations of copyright violation were false and admitted in the link above - Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was a copyright violation. The limited rights granted by the copyright holder of the photo are incompatible with Wikipedia's intended use. Or, if you like, its presence on Wikipedia was a violation of the owner's copyright. No one is accusing you of malice here, though—you made an honest mistake, the mistake was corrected, and you were informed about the problem so that you won't do it again. We can all move on now. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psychonaut - Of course it was not a copyright violation - the file is available for use under a CC license - just not commercial - I stated that clearly and uploaded in as non free fair use and provided the required links - there was absolutally no copyright violation on my part - you claim "its presence on Wikipedia was a violation of the owner's copyright" - no it was not - I uploaded it as required by the owner - under the licence they requested and added the links they requested , I was in total compliance with the copyright owners requests - the fact is that the wiki refused the owners desired release that is all - Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its presence here was a violation of copyright. The photo's licence prohibits commercial use, but all material on Wikipedia, with the exception of that reproduced under the terms of fair use, must be released under a free content licence which permits reproduction and modification for commercial purposes. You were expected to be aware of this, since every time you edit an article there is a prominent notice at the top of the page which warns against "copyright violations", and links that term to an explanation which defines violations as including "media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria". Again, no one is accusing you of willful plagiarism or deliberate misrepresentation of the image's licence. We are assuming that you made a good-faith mistake by overlooking or misunderstanding the rules concerning the use of non-free images, and thereby unintentionally violated copyright. I trust that you now understand the difference between free and non-free images, and that all use of non-free images here, except where permitted under the fair use doctrine, constitutes a copyright violation. Psychonaut (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N0 - I uploaded the file with adherance to all its copyright claims and requirements - I uploded the file as non free fair use with the stated cc licence - I did nothing wrong at all in regards to the copyright owner, I did not violate copyright in any way - I posted all the required links and the stated cc release as per all the file owners requirements - I did not violate coppyright in any way - - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did do wrong. You uploaded a non-free image of a living person in contravention of Wikipedia's copyright rules. You probably did not intend to do wrong, but you did, and your error has been fixed and we can all go on with our lives. Or you can continue to be disruptive trying to achieve a final goal that will never happen and end up being blocked for your disruption. The choice is yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several people, including the nominator, at least one administrator, and at least one completely uninvolved editor, have patiently explained to you why that image's copyright licence is incompatible with use on Wikipedia. The fact that you correctly tagged the image with its author and licence doesn't affect this incompatibility. If you don't understand or accept our explanations then I would advise you not to contribute any further images here. (Editors who continue to contribute images in violation of copyright usually end up blocked very quickly.) Psychonaut (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psychonaut and User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom :it is a free image - released under a cc licence - I have not violated copyright in any way - your threats of blocking are laughable - 18:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a FREE image. It is a "free for non commercial use" image. Wikipedia only accepts fully FREE images. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not and never was as the admin claimed when they deleted as G12 , unambiguous copyright violation - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are done here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are done here - get over yourself - You are also full of your own personal opinion, the wiki does allow non free files after discussion - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does allow non free files if there is a valid free use claim. There is NOT a valid fair use claim when the subject is a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your position - the wiki guidelines allow give and take - there are right now, living people with non free pics on thier articles - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And those pictures are either inappropriate and should be removed, or they meet very very very stringent standards such a representing a person who had a unique "look" that they no longer present where the "look" has received notable commentary (such as David Bowie in his Ziggy Stardust phase -although we actually have free version of that) or have as a particular image been the subject of significant commentary a la More Demi Moore. The image that you are wrapped up in knots about does not come close to meeting the FAIR use requirements for using a non free image of a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "Click here to 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. Launchballer 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
• It is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. (See section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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 "Click here to 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. Launchballer 22:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Cindy(talk) 01:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have done a lot of research and spent a couple of days on the Indiggo issue. I added new information and reputable sources that shed a truthful light on the Indiggo duo, highlighted the American stuff, and deleted things that are not significant and/or erroneous. What do you mean promotional? The fact that they played the lead parts in theatre musicals is promotional? The fact that they released volumes of poetry is promotional? The fact that they had several hit songles in Romania is promotional?

I noticed that there is a Romanian Wikipedia for Indiggo. Please, add the Romanian stuff to the Romanian wiki. In the American wiki, I thought that one has to point out the American accomplishments first which are plenty in Indiggo’s case.

I thought that wikipedia was a collaborative encyclopedia, edited collectively. Please, let’s do this together.

Please, keep my entries and my sources, because working on this subject, I realized that artists like Mihaela and Gabriela deserve to have a right Wikipedia. Dany4444 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dany4444 Your warring and promotional additions to the artcle changed my opinion as to the articles value and I have changed my keep to delete Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help to improve the page. Dany4444 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Boyd shooting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable event. Wikipedia is not a news source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. reddogsix (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alfred Redwine shooting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable event. Wikipedia is not a news source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. reddogsix (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your use of Template:Copied here and here. It can be a difficult template to work with (I have only used it a few times). Both templates also had to go on Talk:Albuquerque Police Department, which I have done. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your recent editing history at Dana Nuccitelli shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (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:Mosfetfaser reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you have moved and blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Allen Ross to a completely different AfD? I can make no sense of that, and am pretty sure it is going to need to be undone, but I want to hear from you first. SpinningSpark 21:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I made a mess of that. I was getting confused by my browser cache, please repair it if possible? Mosfetfaser (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll fix it, but just so you understand, that is a nasty problem you have created because the edit histories of the two pages have become entangled. In future, please follow the instructions for nomination. If that is too difficult for you please ask someone else to do it on your behalf. SpinningSpark 09:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Liz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1 was reverted because it did not appear constructive. Please do not continue to add material to an closed deletion discussion. If you think it was a mistake, or if you have any questions, please discuss it on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to let you know about Twinkle because of how you manually tried to nominate an article for Afd. Twinkle automates this process, among other processes such as a placebo rollback (really isn't a plecebo, as it works just like it), nominating articles for speedies, tagging them, warning or reporting users to the appropriate notice boards, requesting page protection, and a ton more. I highly recommend it, if you haven't heard of it before. However do note that anything you do with it is your own responsibility and should be cautioned. So don't go nominating the main page for a speedy deletion. It can be enabled in your preferences panel under gadgets. Tutelary (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ta very much Tutelery. Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? I have read all of this and (now disabled) user RedPenofDoom? seemed to have started up all of this. In the process has dome a lot of damage to Dr Lipscombs Wiki page. I think it should be changed back. She is a very much a person of note! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewho515 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I re-consider my opinion on Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb? What is it to you?Wrecklesham (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this from User:Mosfetfaser where it had been inappropriately placed. Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRIMARY. I think you are a bit confused - primary sources are allowed. Adding: However, in this specific case, you appear to be correct, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^[1] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

I posted a question-plus-warning to you about your "retaliation" warning to NeilN, instead of blocking for disruption and battleground editing straight away, as I could have done. That was because I wanted to give you a chance to explain that you'd made a mistake, or acknowledge that you got too spontaneous, or something, anything, remotely reasonable. Instead you removed my post with an attack, and were apparently so proud of that that you have posted a diff to it on my page, and posted again on what seem like general harassment principles. Since you insist, then, I've blocked you for 24 hours for battleground editing, disruption, and personal attacks. If you'd been attacking somebody other than me, you'd be getting a longer block; this block is mainly for your original disruptive edit on User talk:NeilN, and the belligerent silliness directed at me is merely icing on the cake. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If your intention is to report me accusing me of edit warring, this is the correct place: WP:AN3. The talk page of the article is not the place to do so. Please follow the WP:TPG and remove the section you opened over there. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a record of your warring not an official report - I don't want you banned, I want you to edit in a more consensus way - that is all - Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep a record of whatever you want on your own talk page. Per the talk page guidelines you can not use the talk page of the article to do so, as Nomoskedasticity correctly told you. Your last edit as well goes against the guidelines. I suggest you read them after removing the section from the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaba_p - where is it exactly stated that I cant detail your warring on the talkpage? Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely in the place you've been pointed to no less than three times already, the WP:TPG:

• Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.

Do as you will, you've already been warned enough times. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is improving the encyclopedia by reporting your warring - Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the revised Deepak Kamani article? --Bejnar (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to come back and reconsider - There have been edits additions from Bejnar - it still looks like an attack story, it looks more like an attack story after the Bejnar changes - I can not change my position to require removal from publication Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put the story back ,the truth hurts ? I guess you need £ 8,000 really badly

I have now put it back again and will continue to do so every time you remobve it

You need to try and understand that the wikipedia entry is public property ,you don't own it .

I really don't care about this truth, in fact I agree completely with Mike Daily. You User:Otto.sump need to understand that this wiki has rules and you are not following them. FYI I wouldn't qualify FOR THE 8000 euro minimum wage Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you may not care about the truth ,some of us do

NO NEED TO SHOUT

LINK ADDED http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/tweet-rant-lawyer-will-not-resign-168480n.24573484

HAPPY ? :-)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Bob's Burgers. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

Hi, I only tried to add education info to the article. I don't think there is any contenscious in the info I added? I apologise for messing up the references when editing- I think these are ok now. (82.132.231.184 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)) Can you please read what is being added before just automatically deleting.(82.132.230.173 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please refrain from editing upon my sandbox. --talk→ WPPilot  07:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]