User talk:Tim bates

Welcome!

TorsinA is now redirected to the existing article at Torsion dystonia. Feel free to expand the stub, keeping in mind the principles of WP:V and WP:RS in Five Pillars above. Enjoy :-)

Hi Tim, I see we have more in common than just BG (Blake's 7 :-). You're doing a great job on the Twin Studies and BG articles. For the latter, however, keep in mind that a large part of BG is, in fact, concerned with animal behavior, not exclusively human behavior. Many methods (such as twin designs) are only used in the subset of BG research dealing with humans. So you should edit the BG article in a little more general way :-) Also, you should mark edits only as "minor" if they are really minor. Adding a new section and adding one or two paragraphs as you did in the BG article does not really fall into that class. Just to avoid you getting problems with other Wikipedians!

Cheers, Wim

--Crusio 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, have a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schonemann and the related Talk page.

Cheers, Wim

--Crusio 10:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Twin study (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to collaborate in an ambitious new MediaWiki project.
The LabVIEW Wiki. -- Michael Aivaliotis 06:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have said: QIMR is now home to one of the largest twin studies in the world.
Either it is the largest, or it isn't. "one of the largest" doesn't make grammatic sense.
Perhaps "one of the larger", or "one of the x largest"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for "Martin is one of the most cited medical scientists in the Southern Hemisphere." Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done for larger/largest, I changed "one of the most cited" to amongst the most cited

Yes, I like the "amongst the most"; good choice of words. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(If I were to be unnecessarily pedantic, I would say that grammatically there's no difference. However, for some reason "amongst" doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as "one of the" does; I guess I'm being somewhat inconsistent!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I notice you made an edit to Intelligence Quotient which removed a citation of Diaz-Asper CM, Schretlen DJ, Pearlson GD on a study of the predictive power of IQ for job performance. However there was no text associated with the edit in the history. This means people have to guess why you removed the bit from the article and I for one have no idea why. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was experimenting with the new (too me) wikEd - the summary field did not show (Safari 4.01)... Rather than lose the edit, I submitted without a summary. I have documented the rationale now. Apologies for the carelessness on my part. Tim bates (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just moved to wikiEd myself using firefox and the summary box is moved over to the right and a bit scrunched up. I particularly like if you click on the delta symbol below a diff it does a better diff which is useful when people have been moving sections around rather than straightforwardly editing them. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jarratt report. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarratt report. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 (2*(8024-8012) under 2 (3-1) degrees of freedom

24 = 2·(8024 − 8012)) under 2 = 3 − 1 degrees of freedom

24 = 2×(8024 − 8012)) under 2 = 3 − 1 degrees of freedom

Please: WP:MOSMATH exists. The second and third forms above are acceptable, but what you wrote was the first. Note that:

• Using an asterisk for ordinary multiplication is uncouth.
• A minus sign looks different from a hyphen.
• A space precedes and follows a minus sign or a plus sign.
• Juxtaposition of "2" with "(3 − 1)" may be mistaken for multiplication of 2 by (3 − 1).

Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add inline citations to your articles. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to fill in the "Purpose of use" for File:Journal of Abnormal Psychology cover.gif that you uploaded recently. It may be deleted if the "Purpose of use" is not filled in. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim, I see you've just done several edits to the Twin study article, which has been on my watchlist since soon after I began to edit Wikipedia actively in May 2010. It appears from your user page that you have a much deeper occupational acquaintance with the professional literature on the subject than I have. I am interested in twin studies in large part because I am acquainted with (and, in one case, related to) researchers who work with the Minnesota Twin Study data sets. I meet some of those researchers in their weekly behaviorial genetics "journal club" during each North American school year. I appreciate you keeping an eye on the article and would welcome your comments and suggestions for the source list on genetics I keep in user space for all wikipedians to use. Feel free also to make suggestions to me as I edit articles on your watchlist. My acquaintance with the psychology literature is more from the IQ testing end (via the literature on gifted education) than from the behavior genetics end, but I like to learn through Wikipedia editing, as you do too. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, thanks for your good wishes, I started watching the re runs of the Onedin Line during a break in employment ('involuntary separation' i.e redundancy) and got hooked again. In trying to find out more about it I stumbled across the Wikipedia entry and as they say ' the rest is history'. I just hope I continue to have the time and enthusiasm to finish what has become something of a 'magnum opus'. All the best, Andrew. Bodazapher (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim

The question of how to order election candidates before the results have been announced was discussed at WT:UK Politics in the run-up to the 2010 general election: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2#Articles_on_Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates_for_Election_2010. The consensus there was to use alphabetical order by surname. This is of course how the candidates appear on the ballot paper.

Once the results are available, the convention of reliable sources is to sort the results in descending order by number of votes. Naturally, this cannot be done until the results are known.

So I have reverted your change, and restored alphabetical order to the candidates list in Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency).

If you would like to reopen the earlier discussion, it would be best to do so at WT:UK Politics, to keep the discussion centralised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, I saw that you added SJR rankings to the BG article. I have some mixed feelings about that. First of all, the SJR is little known and I haven't yet seen it used by anybody else (except ScImago). I'm not sure whether the SJR is related (or even identical) to the Eigenfactor and Article Influence scores that are now included in the Journal Citation Reports (the values are different, so I guess not). Being in the JCR improves the likelihood that these latter indexes will get better known (although I have doubts, given how entrenched the IF is). Should these rankings now also be included in journal articles? Second, however, by only presenting the SJR for the category in which the journal is ranked highest, the edit can be seen as promotional (in "Genetics", for example, BG ranks 84th). I routinely add rankings in different categories for the IF to journal articles, but up till now I have not done this for the SJR and for the moment I am not convinced that it is worth while (and think of all the updating that would need to be done each year...) Let me know what you think about this. --Crusio (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim,

I just went through the latest edits of Gwet to find cases were he has over-referenced his book (a few examples: [1], [2], [3], and so on).

I am writing to you since Gwet seems like a serious statistician doing great work. But I can't seem to be sure which of his edits are to keep and which are to remove (for example, this one looks fine to me). Maybe you could direct him to the proper wiki-rules on how to cite his work here? I suspect it would allow him to contribute a lot instead of spamming at times. Talgalili (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Talgalili, I concur. A lot of those pages had what ere essentially link adverts (not just Gwet), but several are fine. I think it's about right now. He seems to have so far only contributed links to his books and web site to date. Will make contact.

Hey - interesting stuff there. You should reference it before someone deletes it. Kansaikiwi (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. In wikispeak, vandalism consists of edits that are deliberately intended to damage an article. Using the word to refer to anything else, including deliberate disregard of consensus, is an error, and usually ends up making it more difficult to resolve an issue. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice: You are right and I was in a hurry and in error. cheers, Tim bates (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Please note that Wikipedia article headings are not supposed to have so many capital letters as in this edit (I've fixed them in this edit). See WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, I think your recent edits to the grit (personality trait) article have been quite good. I noticed though that you wrote: "Grit is argued to be trait to perseverance." I'm not really clear what is meant by "trait to" and wondered if you would reword it to make your meaning more explicit. Thanks for your input. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I'm going through a bunch of psychology journal cats that you recently created. Can you tell me what the difference is between "cognitive science journals" and "cognitive psychology journals"? Shouldn't the latter just be part of the former? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G, "cognitive science" and "cognitive psychology" should overlap completely. However most CP journals use students as subjects (or neuropsych patients) and reaction time as a dependent variable. Most CS papers will involve brain scans, and similar measures. I'd not lose any sleep if the two categories were merged, but also see them as a helpful chunk of hierarchy. probably depends on how deep your folders are your hard drive: Go ahead and merge them: the fields should merge anyhow. Tim bates (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll make a "soft redirect" from "cognitive psychology journals" to "cognitive science journals". A bot should then move the articles within a week or so. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Generalist psychology journals": I can't say I like the "generalist", but why not just keep these articles in the topcat "Psychology journals"? That's what we do with "generalist" biology journals and such... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is definately worth keeping unless you dump everything that is currently left at the top level into "miscellaneous" - which is basically where many of them belong: minor, often self-edited "journals". Plus some categories that need to be created.

So I could file the top level under gender studies etc, then you we can let the big generalist generals float at the top? How does that sound? Tim bates (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but basically, what I propose is to have all "generalist" journals directly in the top cat "psychology journals". All others go to appropriate subcats. Any minor "self-edited" journals should be proposed for deletion if they don't meet WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I recently moved America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats) but didn't notice that the name was a title of a book, which voids the reason for the move. So I attempted to move it back, but moved it to the wrong place again! I think I've cleared up the created redirects now, so if you go to the page, you should find that the article is exactly how you left it. The only change is that your edis will not appear in the edit history, since the page was moved. You may continue editing the page as usual. Questions? Leave a message on my talk page. — JJJ (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally sent to me due to loss of attribution because of the page moves and deletions. — JJJ (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians are allergic to in-line external links. You have probably established the notability of the book but will you please push your external links to the end of the article using the <ref> mechanism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats) 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/America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying thank you for your really good edit. Lova Falk talk 08:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Beck (engineer) 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/Peter Beck (engineer) 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

StuartJRitchie (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ageing journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Psychology and Aging.cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Greece austerity is about government fiscal constraints the news is covering the banks shutting versus government defaults. The banks shutting is a second order effect of a recession and fear of potential government defaults on pensions, etc.Is that the best way to describe the bank-government connection? Tumblinb (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.

I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Journal of experimental social psychology cover.gif. 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 within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking at the twin models you had created here. It seems to me that the path coefficients are incorrect. They are equal to the ACE variance components when they should be equal to the square roots of the ACE variance components. For example, in the standardized graph, the model-predicted MZ twin correlation is 0.84*1*0.84+0.04*1*0.04=0.7072, when the actual MZ correlation in Silventoinen et al. is 0.89. Using the correct path coefficients, the model-predicted correlation is sqrt(0.84)*1*sqrt(0.84)+sqrt(0.04)*1*sqrt(0.04)=0.88. Do you agree, and if so, could you redo the models with the correct coefficients?--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi: Caption should have read variance components. Fixed now - thanks!. Tim bates (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Favoritism. Since you had some involvement with the Favoritism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating Paul Costa Jr. Any chance you could improve the in-line referencing please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reverted your deletion once which is not a war. And already engaged on talk page Tim bates (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have added PMID 18315789 to a contentious article. The middle author there is Timothy C. Bates. I don't know if that is you, but if so please be aware of WP:SELFCITE and please abide by what it says there. The issues are difficult enough without adding this sort of complication (if it exists) to the problem. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks: Should have added a COI warning to the edit at least, and I agree in general. Added here as the article uses a meta-analysis and quotes to make a point which is moderated somewhat by the followup paper. No financial, socik-pupet, or advocacy COI. Happy as usual to let the wisdom of other editors sort it out Tim bates (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Journal of Educational Psychology cover.gif. 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) 18:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article back in 2013 appears to have been copied from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235378030_An_Examination_of_Stereotype_Threat_Effects_on_Girls'_Mathematics_Performance. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look: Not sure what the problem is: there's a paraphrase of the abstract, and a block quote, marked as such, which is well within fair use. Am I missing something?

Hi Tim, thanks for your wide-ranging contributions.

Without diminishing your efforts in any way, it seems a significant proportion of your recent edits have introduced errors into articles (e.g. eliminated punctuation, incorrect conjugation, five errors in one edit). As you can surely appreciate, it takes other editors much longer to fix these than it would take to prevent them in the first place.

Are you perhaps editing under time pressure? If you have a little extra time, you might consider using the "Show changes" function to let you check over your work before publishing an edit. This has saved me from publishing errors many times. --pmj (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the kind reminder Pmj! Spend a bunch of my time fixing the same, so it's an easy message to hear: cheers, t  Tim bates (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Thanks for uploading File:Journal of Abnormal Psychology cover.gif. 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) 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EJP Cover.gif. 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) 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Age and ageing cover.gif. 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) 02:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 14 October 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Universities Superannuation Scheme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page USS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EJP Cover.gif. 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) 17:22, 22 May 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]

Your edits made from mobile app seem to default to "minor edit" though not actually fitting that description as used in Wikipedia. Sooner or later someone will revert an edit they don't like for not really being a minor edit and thus requiring an edit summary. Your app may be retaining this as a default setting from one long ago edit where you ticked the "minor" box deliberately. I don't remember how I arrived at your edit history but thought I should tell you. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Was using the beta app. Switched to normal app and this seems to be resolved. Tim bates (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cortex (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This was created in 2009, and has not been improved much since... it has ZERO citations.

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. Rp2006 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Aging.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) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Paul Scott (Scientist).jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/neuroscience/john-paul-scott/the-life-of-jp-scott.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]