Archives:1,2

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedVice presidency of Aaron Burr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGeorge Clinton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Mario Vargas Llosa.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim ofnon-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails thefirst non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may haveno free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go tothe file description page and add the text{{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing<your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. Onthe file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per thenon-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk ·contribs ·email)02:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Mario Vargas Llosa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plumber, you moved Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblos, but I cannot find a record of a discussion occurring before hand. This is a controversial move. Please undo your work and start a talk page discussion or link to a proposed move discussion. There are two problems, sources use Ancestral Puebloans. Also Pueblos mean places - such as the indigenous Puebloan people's Pueblos in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. Please revert your moves, and start a discussion first. Thank youNetherzone (talk)00:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can contest the move with a vote if you like, but this should be a routine non-controversial move since Puebloans was moved toPueblo peoples. Puebloan is a dated term and is not theWP:COMMONNAME. EvenBritannica prefers Ancestral Pueblo culture. Pueblos means towns in Spanish, but this is an English Wikipedia. Do you think Ancestral Pueblo culture would be a better article title? I considered that but it narrows the scope of the article a bit. --Plumber (talk)00:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you did not read the article talk page. It is not an uncontroversial move since there was a previous discussion about moving the article from Anasazi to Ancestral Puebloans, then another discussion about moving the article from Ancient Pueblo people to Ancestral Puebloans. You did not start a discussion on the talk page, nor on theWikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to discuss your proposed changes. That would be best practices and acceptable processes. Unilaterally making a change like this is controversial. Please undo your changes and start a discussion or take it to requested redirect venue.

Also, Pueblos means places/villages in English as well as Spanish. For example, the 19 Pueblos in the Rio Grande Valley, for example,Santo Domingo Pueblo a.k.a. Kewa Pueblo,Isleta Pueblo,Acoma Pueblo,Taos Pueblo,Laguna Pueblo,Zuni Pueblo,San Ildefonso Pueblo,Cochiti Pueblo,Jemez Pueblo and more, all in the state ofNew Mexico, andTexas which are in the United States. The primary languages spoken there are English and their indigenous languages, such as Tewa, Towa, Tiwa, Keresan, etc.Netherzone (talk)00:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made the comment onTalk:Pueblo peoples that we should differentiate between Puebloan and Pueblo peoples because Puebloan is "used more often" — however, this is not true. Pueblo is the common adjective and articles are named according toWP:COMMONNAME. There was a discussion ten years ago about moving the page from Ancient Pueblo peoples to Ancestral Puebloans. Since then the page Puebloans was moved toPueblo peoples. This is entirely consistent withWP:C2D. I am can assure you I am aware of the Pueblo peoples. Why do you think the Britannica page on Ancestral Pueblo culture is not named Ancestral Puebloan culture if that is theWP:COMMONNAME? --Plumber (talk)00:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a controversial move. You need to start a redirect discussion.Netherzone (talk)00:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plumber, you need to start discussion here:WP:RFD.Netherzone (talk)00:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not moves. The page in question was moved in the first place fromAnasazi toAncestral Puebloans, after the old Britannica title changed fromAnasazi toAncestral Puebloans. However, since then the Britannica page was changed toAncestral Pueblo culture, and the Wikipedia page forPuebloans was moved toPueblo peoples. SincePueblo peoples is the main article, renamingAncestral Puebloans toAncestral Pueblo peoples is a noncontroversial administrative procedure according to the principles underlyingWP:C2D, Consistency with main article's name. If you object to the C2D-based move you can start a move discussion on the article's talk page. If you go that far, may I suggestAncestral Pueblo culture in line with the Encyclopedia Britannica article? --Plumber (talk)01:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica is not the ultimate authority, and they do not dictate Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been many discussions about the article title, which were not taken into consideration when you acted (and are now are changing multiple articles to your own preferred version without discussion). The majority of sources use Ancestral Puebloans. Example:[1]

Your redirect renamed the article and moved it to another title without prior discussion and without taking previous discussions into account, which would have been both best practices and considerate of the community.Netherzone (talk)01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Yesterday, an editing spree occurred when dozens of articles were changed to your preferred version without first gaining consensus. For example, templates were changed, and articles renamed to your preferred version without prior discussion - even though a discussion was taking place on your talk and in several other venues. These changes also introduced ambiguities, such as changing the Tiwa Puebloans to Tiwa Pueblo peoples. Tiwa is a language spoken by Puebloan people across several pueblo villages (sovereign nations), AND there is no such place as Tiwa Pueblo. BTW, you are using the articleAll Pueblo Council of Governors to justify your changes. I happened to create that article the APCG represents the living people of the 19 modern pueblos (not the Ancestral Puebloans. You are mixing apples with oranges. Please get consensus for your mass changes, as they are creating a lot of work for other editors, and are introducing errors. Please undo your mass changes across the encyclopedia.Netherzone (talk)14:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly misrepresenting the discussion which went on atTalk:Pueblo peoples, and acting like it did not take place despite your own participation in them.The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan.WP:COMMONNAME prevails on this website. We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. Remember to edit and participate in discussions in good faith.Plumber (talk)14:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atTalk:Ancestral Puebloans. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges.Please do not archive active discussions. This is incredibly disrespectful to those engaged in discussion and is detrimental to the project.Pinchme123 (talk)16:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you reverted was made in the Talk Space, not the Main Space. --Plumber (talk)16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you now arguing that your disruption was to Talk space rather than mainspace, and therefore isn't disruptive? Wow, I might actually set aside the time needed to take this to AN/I. --Pinchme123 (talk)16:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted immediately after sending me this warning was in the talk space (actually, you should have reverted the edit before editing my talk page.) I do not believe this warning applies to Talk Spaces, only to discussions in the main space.I have never before been warned for archiving a talk page in my nearly 20 years editing Wikipedia. --Plumber (talk)16:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for anyone who comes here in relation to the current activities of Plumber with regard to Ancestral Puebloans: I am literally 5 hours away from stepping away from my computer, and thus Wikipedia, for the next two weeks. I strongly encourage those who look to review their conduct, my conduct, the conduct of anyone else involved in the discussion, and take this to any venues that might be appropriate. I would actually do so myself if I wasn't pressed for time. --Pinchme123 (talk)16:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enjoy your vacation. Joe S. Sando is a great author if you want to read more about the Pueblos in your free time. --Plumber (talk)16:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I want to read about Ancestral Puebloans, I'll find an appropriate scholar. But now it sounds like you're basing your entire position on a single person's work? --Pinchme123 (talk)16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      You're welcome for the recommendation.Plumber (talk)16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      • I didn't thank you for anything. --Pinchme123 (talk)17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop yourdisruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may beblocked from editing.This is looking somewhat like retaliation:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netherzone#c-Plumber-20250505152700-File:Ancestral_Puebloans_Screenshot_2025-05-04_at_9.28.15_PM.png. I'd again advise you to try to work things out with fellow editors through discussion rather than such reactions. All that was needed is a friendly, "I've seen the graph, you can delete it now" type of comment.Netherzone (talk)16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? I have not made any contested edits in the main space since your last warning, and repeatedly engaged in the issue on both your talk page and the article page. The current edits reflect your position, not mine. There is no need for the above template. --Plumber (talk)16:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You followed me onto Commons. Not cool.Netherzone (talk)18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking a picture you uploaded in a comment addressed to me is following you? This is a rather bizarre violation ofWP:Avoid personal remarks.Plumber (talk)19:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a deletion template while the discussion is going on is the issue. But you already know that.Netherzone (talk)19:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should've linked to it externally, not uploaded it to Commons. This is standard practice.Plumber (talk)19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

Your multiple edits here, in several waves, are often petty, introduce factoids of undue weight, and are altogether disruptive. Many of your changes also cast out years of hard-won consensus and will be reverted.Mason.Jones (talk)21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You previously espoused the beliefborder states were more Confederate than Union during the civil war, so it is understandable the two of us do not always find common ground on the prevailing historical consensus. --Plumber (talk)22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to deflect. You've now been warned by editors of two articles to stop with your disruptive, sometimes faulty, and frequently petty edits. Should you continue, you will be sanctioned.Mason.Jones (talk)14:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTimeline of African-American firsts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCardinal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is to do with conduct by user Dicklyon in moving - I am informing you as you were involved in the move discussion at1925 Tri-State tornado or2021 Tri-State tornado. I'd like to add thatyou in particular been mentioned multiple times in this discussion, so I'm unsure as to why nobody's informed you of this. This is not an implication of wrongdoing on your end.Departure– (talk)16:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Straw Hats of One Piece, Chapter 1000.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Straw Hats of One Piece, Chapter 1000.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Straw Hats of One Piece, Chapter 1000.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]