User talk:Prosfilaes

Yes I, Mark L. Knowles, took this picture of deadheads at Red Rocks here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Rocks_Amphitheatre ty and peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grateful Deadhead (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive1, /Archive2

Hi there! Thanks for your note. I'm happy to change the license to whatever is necessary. The work is entirely my own, and I'd like it to stay on Wikipedia. On my website (www.radicalcartography.net), all my maps are by default CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 .. but I'm happy to give special permissions as needed. I would like there to be a attribution and a link to the map's original page (http://www.radicalcartography.net/bostonnow.html), if possible. Just let me know! Citynoise (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Please let me now if there's anything else. Citynoise (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the PROD on the grounds that lack of neutrality is not a reason to delete. I disagree on this point as WP:NPOV is a strict policy. And, in any case, this was just one of several stated reasons to delete. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at what was on the talk page you'd have seen that the flickr user is saying he took the photo in Feb 2007 at the Werder spring festival - a festival which doesn't take place until April, and Madonna wasn't on tour in 2007. In any case we have a WP:Reliable Source that the image was not taken by that flickr user and that the rights are owned by the Associated Press. [[1]] . I'll take it to the copyright problems page Bazzargh (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite you to revisit this AfD, as I've found evidence that Gallaher has been a finalist in several other awards including the Walt Whitman Award. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bagh (garden), without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary and discussing at the talk page. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. I know you were strongly supportive of deleting the page, but misrepresenting the consensus is unhelpful. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained it several times; this is Bagh (garden), not Bagh (word). What bagh means in Turkish might not be completely out of line on Bagh, but it has nothing to do with Bagh (garden). If you'll note the AfD, there was a movement to continue to delete Bagh (word) as a whatever because it was so bad, even if Bagh (garden) was acceptable.

I furthermore take offense to the fact that the edit summaries go

→Etymology: delete text; not a dictionary

rv. You must not put the existence of something to vote and then so blatantly change the nature of the entry on which people had been voting!!!! Please have respect for others!!!!

this isn't Bagh (word), which was going to get deleted, and this isn't a dictionary. None of this entomological trivia has any place here

You are acting against the will of the community. If you have a point, lay it out in the talk page and let the community decide

I note nothing in his responses that pertains to content, and it starts out by saying that changing the article content lacks respect for others, a clear violation of WP:OWN. [2] is another example of WP:OWN and borderline personal attacks. I interpret the consensus on AfD as being that Bagh (word) was crap; unlike that, Bagh (garden) might have some encyclopedic potential. Instead of more accusations about the supposed "will of the community" (coming from someone who stomped off a few months ago because his copyvios were getting deleted), I'd like to see some reason to keep that text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reminded BF about WP:OWN. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've never done a 2nd nomination before so not sure about the procedure. I did list on AfD but it disappeared. Will try again. Dreamspy (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to editorialize or present a half-truth; Most of the aircraft in our fleet are 25+ years old. We inspect them on a mandated schedule and get fined or penalized when we don't -- Just look at the recent American Airlines incident for a good example of this. AA got busted skating on maintenance and it cost them.

Airplanes are not like your car, they don't just rot away and eventually fall out of the sky when they reach some magic age. We maintain them, upgrade them, and replace parts as they age. Besides that, we don't measure their ages in years, but in pressurization cycles. A heavily-used aircraft wears out much faster than one that sits around idle. I guess I could provide some maintenance logs or something as a source, but I'm not sure I would be allowed to do that, and I don't want to risk my job.

I guess I'm unsure what you want me to do. I'm new to this whole wiki thing, I'm a pilot, and I just want to help people understand what happened without being biased or sensationalistic about it.

--98.214.105.54 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I've just started a new section on the 2008 Hurricane Season talk page to clarify why I made the change I did. Please have a look when you get a chance.

Thanks! AlexTiefling (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that you know Hebrew, I would ask you to consult professor Eliezer E. Goldschmidt on his e-mail: goldsmit@agri.huji.ac.il or by phone: 08-94889353, please notify me about what he says because I'm interested the article should remain accessible(maybe you know how to host it on a different address and correct the link to it). Thank You Critisizer (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please take a further look at Aozora Bunko? I hope this revision of the text is somewhat responsive to the core of critical comments you've tried to express? Perhaps you'll be able to see that I've at least tried to figure out what caused you to reference WP:COATRACK. You may notice that I've added to the categories and to the stub-tags; and maybe we can hope that these additions will attract the attention of editors willing to help improve this article.--Tenmei (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you moved Saudia Flight 163 to Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 163 on 22 April 2008. The name of the airline at the time of the accident (1980) was, in fact, Saudia (1972-1996) — not Saudi Arabian Airlines.

The commenter on the talk page who suggested that the page be moved was mistaken in suggesting this.

For consistency's sake, it's preferable to use the name of the airline at the time of the accident. For example, accidents involving Northwest Airlines during its early years use its name at that time, e.g., Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 710. Could you please move the article back to its former location at Saudia Flight 163?

If you're unable to do so, I'll undertake the move myself within a week or so. If you have any concerns, please leave a note on my talk page. oh my yes (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. The article did read 'Saudia' in the past, and now only uses 'Saudi Arabian Airlines' instead of 'Saudia' in 2-3 places. This can be changed using a find and replace. If you prefer not to make the edits yourself or are unable to do so, I will do it within the next few days. Thanks, oh my yes (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prosfilaes, I noticed that you removed the image on the Grendel page. I've wondered about the image on the Grendel's mother page and subarticles as well. Can you take a look and see if you think it complies with WP policies? The image is located at:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grendels_mum_or.jpg

Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Explain me, please, why did you delete wiki-links added by me in the article Esperanto. It is quite usual in Wikipedia to mark as links years, countries etc. When I see in Wikipedia a year number without link, I always think that it is a little flaw and often add the link. Why don't you like this? --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I have somewhat other thought about links, but I don't insist. I'd like to note only the following:

1. As for me, it is quite normal to create the same links in DIFFERENT SECTIONS of the same article. Maybe, a reader reads only one section and does not notice links in other sections.
2. Explain me, please, by what a rule should we decide which years should be marked as links and which ones should not. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Lathander has been nominated for deletion. I have noticed you working to help other D&D deity articles get kept, in the past. If there is anything you can do to improve this article so that it may be kept, please do so.  :) BOZ (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning label you removed should be allowed.

Look at the edit history to Hurricane Katrina you'll see that a similar label was there for 2 days with no obejections.--Ted-m (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think remain in the language proposal policy - community draft for its approval? remember, it does not matter our personal views as much, but the best arguments do. we can't afford to spend years bickering over minor details. please reply in the talk page. Crazymadlover. —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?[reply]

If you read the talk page, we've reached an agreement (and it's backed up by Juliancolton) that the (2008) is not necessary in the name above the infobox. So please do not revert the change anymore, thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kamau Kambon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination). Thank you. Trickrick1985 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Corn (disambiguation). It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prosfilaes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

During my editing I have repeatedly posted to Talk:Corn and have tried to adapt my editing on Corn to deal with parts of my fellow editor's complaints. I don't know what I'm supposed to do when the fellow editor prefers to blindly revert every one of my changes without discussion.

Decline reason:

There are many suggestions for dealing with editing disputes at WP:DISPUTE. They will help you to cope with conflict without getting involved in edit-wars, which are disruptive and counterproductive. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|Yes, I should have used the talk page more and I will discuss the problematic edits in the future.}}

Your block has now expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of art is fundamentally scewed. Any art which abuses a child (A child cannot have the emotional maturity to allow herself to be photographed nude, never mind the sexual understanding) is not art. Its sexual abuse. This is what is at stake here. Nobody is waging some war against free speech here - we are defending the rights of the vulnerable, who are and have been exploited when they are incapable of understanding or making their own minds up on these difficult issues. I have responded on the image talk page. 86.40.99.86 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest. I've read some Chinese materials for Hmong, and adds some comments in m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia_Hmong. Feel free to have a look. -✉ Hello World! 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Would you be able to comment on the talkpage why ACE should be kept in the seasonal predictors part of the article please - Many thanks Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion regarding the Novyy God paragraph that you re-instated in Hanukkah bush at Talk:Hanukkah_bush#Novyy_God. Take care, --Igoldste (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread on WT:WPTC about this edit. Please state your point on it. Many thanks. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section 2009 section per consensus in WT:WPTC. Cheers. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 23:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you have recently posted to WT:WPTC or otherwise been involved with tropical cyclone articles, please nominate and review pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment so we can revive this process. Thanks in advance, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if we have ever met, but as I've just referred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination) to a discussion that you participated in, I thought I should let you know. Apologies, as that page is very long. You can find the relevant discussion by searching on that page for discussion around the phrase "WP:DELETE". Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prosfilaes -- sorry about failure to provide an edit summary. That book and its author got pages made and references batched all over the place in two waves, basically by two usernames -- as one editor comented, it looked pretty self-serving. I was taking Grigsby out of a list that consisted of scholarly and academic publications. DavidOaks (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue is a good source according to my viewpoint on language subject, also if you want to change that, just change that, right now you are also destroying many new links I and also other persons made. So instead of just wiping everything i would prefer it if you talked to me or talked on the discussion section.

Also it just needs to give an overview. This is what ethnologue says, there is already discussion about the number of speakers in the section. In the summery it seems not useful to me to have big debates about numbers, and personally i find the etnhologue number more trustworthy than any other source i have seen. A research by one german student seems to be less trusty then this authoraty on language.

So please talk instead of undoing everything I and other people made to improve the Esperanto article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douwebeerda (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prosfilaes. You have new messages at Billinghurst's talk page.
Message added 11:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Someone is after arcane US copyright info. I have asked for the hard data, and would appreciate you providing a view point when the data is provided. Thanks. :-) billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Boghog (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Patton's opinion about the band Wolfmother is not notable enough to report in either article, nor is David Brin's opinion about the movie Wizards. This is not censorship or POV pushing, it's common sense. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't care about Mike Patton or Wolfmother. Don't post to my talk page to discuss what goes in an article; that goes in the article talk space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wizards_(film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the reason I changed the maximum estimate to "1000" is that is the highest figure I saw sourced elsewhere in the article. The claim as it stands now doesn't appear to have any citation whatsoever. It has to be backed up by a WP:RS or it can be challenged and deleted. Fell Gleaming^(talk)

You have't answered this query, but you're still reverting out cite tags from the article. Facts must be verified, especially hard figures like you are presenting. Without a valid reference, they can be challenged and deleted. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is a summary of information in the article. You don't put citations in the infobox for the sake of clarity. I don't see if you insist on all the citations being duplicated in the introduction, why you can't copy them yourself?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dragon chess has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this fairly recent chess variant is notable. Only one short mention in a newspaper article, no evidence of any awards or other things that may help to meet WP:N.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am letting you know that Quinton Hoover has been nominated for deletion again, as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists, as you participated in the previous AFD for Quinton Hoover. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may be interested in the Lovecraft discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 July 27. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about undoing my edit about Colin... but he is back. NHC site is having issues... TDI19 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the United States notably applies the rule that all images before 1923 are public domain, they apply the life + 70 years rule in addition to it. On the other hand, if it's less than 70 years in the template, the {{possibly non-free in US}} applies. mechamind90 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced the "Do not move to commons" templates with those that will actually display the year when it becomes public domain. "{{PD-USonly|expiry=January 1, 2011}}"
• In addition, I've found a middle ground for the PD-old-70 template.
• Finally, when a work is already PD in the source country with 70+ applied, might I suggest using {{PD-US}} instead of {{PD-art-US}}? Doing so will prevent contradiction. mechamind90 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cum shot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Cum shot. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

The problem being that there are so many more people willing to block someone then to actually mediate; how much more effective it could have been to post to the talk page about the issues instead of wildly swinging a banhammer?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not like we didn't try to explain to User:DMSBel why we were reverting their edits and the content had been in place for years AFAICT. It's no surprise no one else was there to revert instead of you, if reverting what is pretty obviously vandalism in the form of censorship ends up with you being blocked. Smartse (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of repeatedly reverting, you could have asked for help from the WikiProjects under whose aegis the page falls, WP:WikiProject Sexuality and WP:WikiProject Pornography. You also could have brought the matter to WP:RS/N when User:DMSBel continued to remove sourced material.

You might want to read WP:Vandalism, especially the section on "What is not vandalism". Edits with which you disagree, even if they are disruptive, are not vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- saw you removed the link to FreeLiterature.org, reason being EL's to linklists aren't the policy. In this case: FreeLiterature.org also links to other sites providing free e-books, but the main occupation is producing e-text for PG, and looking for people to help out with that. If you want, you can contact Michael (Hart) - hart@pglaf.org, who personally helped setting up this site. Thanks for reconsidering... Marc (marcdh@freeliterature.org).Marcdh2010 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COI. Frankly, your page doesn't sell itself well, given that it looks only like a collection of links. There are several other sites that have produced PG books that aren't linked, and I think that the article would be better served by a narrow collection of links.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about free literature - we don't sell - narrow views do enerve me - later :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcdh2010 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree in principle with your edits at 5 (number), I do note that consistency across the number articles should be maintained. Accordingly, this is an issue probably best opened for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, so changes can be made to all numbers' infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say I censored this article? I did not delete the picture... --Prust (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the consensus?? Please be responsible. --Prust (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues about the article belong on article talk, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srry. --Prust (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005, you participated in an AFD discussion this article. It was kept, but I have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a message at Talk:Metre which has been there since January and has presumably been seen by every editor watching that page. Whilst I don't share the sentiments expressed, I do recognize it as humour which is only mildly disparaging of some citizens of the USA. I have in the past seen far, far worse comments on talk pages that have survived and which have not produced any comment. I suspect that you may be being a little over zealous to the extent that it feels like censorship. Can I ask that you revisit that edit with slightly more rose-tinted spectacles on ? Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an edit that, as you admit, is hostile to people of a certain nationality. It contributes nothing to the creation of an encyclopedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prosfilaes. You have new messages at Talk:International Standard Book Number.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you choose to respond, please do so over there or here. HairyWombat 21:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a technical correction; in your RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 13#Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (which I support), you refer to the redirects at issue as "cross-wiki redirects". They're not. All of the redirects are within Wikipedia. They don't for example, redirect to another language's wikipedia or to a non-Wikipedia project like Wiktionary. I think the term you were looking for was "cross-namespace redirects". TJRC (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution history at Wikisource reveals you to be an infrequent contributor there, so I am informing you here that you have received a request there. — O'Dea (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

Why did you delete my edits, stating my source was "unreliable." My source is well documented and comes with a very reliable bibliography filled with primary sources, including Jefferson's memoirs, correspondence, and a ton of other sources both contemporary and secondary. Emperor001 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prosfilaes. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 07:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I find you comment that my suggestion was "inappropriate" rather impolite. There are good reasons why one might want to come to MCQ (where I am a sometime answerer). Most notably, we cannot expect contributors to use Commons, they may only be on Wikipedia; second, the header of MCQ says nothing about not asking about Commons images and the given description of "A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions." seems to fit just fine. Whilst Commons may be the best place to answer some questions, it should be perfectly possible to answer those about US copyright (in particular) at MCQ. Since a given question is a fait accompli, I would therefore ask that you only direct users to Commons where strictly necessary and do so in a more polite manner. Thank you. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image that's not in the public domain in the US needs to be deleted from Commons. I think you would be quite annoyed if discussions started up on Commons about Wikipedia articles that were copyvios that never got fed back to Wikipedia. If a picture is on Commons, the discussions on its copyright need to happen on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that was more of a reply to Supportstrom, but what did you mean "please don't make such changes as minor"? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jones Law (Philippines). 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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.
See Talk:Jones Law (Philippines)#Another revert, and a warning re edit warring for discussion Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Long s#Historical_Usage_Graph". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since some approve of the graph, others don't, and I'm to close to it, I've asked for an assessment at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You might want to comment there yourself. --Farry (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to replace

"as such the second statement is now mute"

with

"as such the second statement is now moot".

I will now leave you with the classic Ode to a spellchecker song. (smile)


The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her

I have a spelling checker.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,
Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.
Your sure lee glad two no.
It is core wrecked in every weigh,
My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,
Is trussed two bee a Joule.
The check Ur pours o'er every word,
To Czech sum spelling rule.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,
hour spelling mite decline.
If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den,
With words sew fare too here.

2 rite with care is quite a fete,
Of witch won should bee proud;
and wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws R knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.
Such soft wear four pea seize.
And why eye brake in 2 averse
With righting sure too please.

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June Richmond, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Andy Kirk, Brian Morton and Richard Cook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Nbound (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted me and I'm upset by your edit summary, "revert to longer, more descriptive text," which is not a substantive explanation, IMO. What's the logic behind insisting on having the same detailed (that is, "longer, more descriptive") information in two articles on territories, and in only one article at all on states? (Consider the respective populations.) I added a little info on the states ( with the edit summary, " CA, FL incl. Page moved"), and that was reverted. I removed redundant info - redundant because it is on the page Copyright status of work by the U.S. government where it belongs, adding the edit summary, "Info in the main article. (See previous edit.) Refine wording and rm. redundancy.)". In response to the wholesale revert and obnoxious comment "unsourced and completely wrong; there is no constitutional issue, it's purely statutory" I addressed the concern and ignored the obnoxiousness. And you reverted, providing no explanation. Please engage in discussion instead of edit warring, which is when you just revert (fight), and do not communicate (cooperate) so as to try to reach consensus. If you're going to defend having information in two articles on territories, and in one article on states, then do it by discussing the merits thereof, or by reverting and discussing the merits thereof, but not by just reverting.--Elvey (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, edit warring? I've edited that article once this year, and gripping about my edit summary is pretty outrageous when the edit I reverted said "Correction", when in fact it was a revert.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there was a series of reverts that you participated in merely to the extent that you made one revert which I guess makes sense if you hadn't seen the bigger picture. I won't call it edit warring if you prefer. Now that I've tried to provide some context, and struck the 'warring', can you address my concerns with your edit?--Elvey (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, meaningful communication is too much to ask for, it seems. --Elvey (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:H. P. Lovecraft, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted me and I'm upset by your edit summary, "revert to longer, more descriptive text," which is not a substantive explanation, IMO. What's the logic behind insisting on having the same detailed (that is, "longer, more descriptive") information in two articles on territories, and in only one article at all on states? (Consider the respective populations.) I added a little info on the states ( with the edit summary, " CA, FL incl. Page moved"), and that was reverted. I removed redundant info - redundant because it is on the page Copyright status of work by the U.S. government where it belongs, adding the edit summary, "Info in the main article. (See previous edit.) Refine wording and rm. redundancy.)". In response to the wholesale revert and obnoxious comment "unsourced and completely wrong; there is no constitutional issue, it's purely statutory" I addressed the concern and ignored the obnoxiousness. And you reverted, providing no explanation. Please engage in discussion. If you're going to defend having information in two articles on territories, and in one article on states, then do it by discussing the merits thereof, or by reverting and discussing the merits thereof, but not by just reverting. Can you address my concerns with your edit? --Elvey (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You [use the terms Bitching and Harassing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElvey&diff=cur&oldid=prev] to describe the above comment of 18:10, 19 August 2013! a)Is it your contention that it's the words I just used when I tried to ask about your edit that are "Bitching and Harassing?" b)Is it your contention that the fact that I just did so here, inherently "Bitching and Harassing" no matter what words I use to do so? I ask because knowing if it's a) or b), then I can perhaps come to see a good reason for your use of those terms. Please don't reply if you're not willing to answer a) / b). If you're not willing to discuss your edit, no matter what words I use to do so, then I don't want to ask any more. --Elvey (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jones Law (Philippines)#Topical importance re nature of and terminology describing the PhilAm War. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi, Prosfilaes. Elvey and I are going back and forth on the talk page of this article, still. I'm growing weary, but he's still trying to remove the sourced material both you and I have restored, in favor of his unrelated material about states' works. Would you be willing to join the discussion? I don't know if he's unreachable or if it's just that I'm failing to reach him. I'm hoping someone else knowledgeable trying to explain from a different angle would help. He's clearly not getting it from me. TJRC (talk)

I tried to add something -- which I thought was useful -- to the "Eskimo Words for Snow" article. Between Maunus and now you -- I GIVE UP. Fine. Please consider that you've merely REMOVED content, possibly useful to those looking up this entry -- you've NOT contributed, edited, cited, added, or clarified -- merely enforced, and REDUCED. [I looked up your histories -- seems you both have quite a record for controversy, and a taste for WP battle -- I'm not going there. (For chrissake, we're talking about an article about snow and linguistics -- and, btw, what I added was dead-on accurate, and then sourced. THEN you guys went and killed 3-5 paragraphs that *I* didn't write, based on me saying THEY weren't ('properly') sourced EITHER. I do NOT mean to violate guidelines, nor insult, but: could you CONTRIBUTE, FIX, ADD -- rather than (and I refer to each of your RATHER lengthy talk pages, replete with controversy, and that is NOT subjective nor personal nor insulting) -- act as fussy schoolmarms to everyone else?] Basically, you cut off the article's nose to spite your face.

DS - I quote, from your own talk page (slight paraphrase): "those who don't like unnecessary drama, shouldn't go around creating unnecessary drama". Heh. >;-) Goose. Gander. Sauce.

Think, please, about this: you, and Maunus, deleted a LOT of info. Probably almost all of which was relevant and accurate, and which was NOT from ME -- y'all just dove into delete, NOT contribute mode (deleting not just my para, but a bunch of other ones from other contributors, too. Emphasis on "contributors".

Seems like more than a few people on y'all's pages have similar observations.) Now, back up, to what you deleted: that's subtraction from WP -- not addition.

Wikipedia isn't particularly useful if self-appointed pedants go on delete-patrol for everything that's inadequately (or 'incorrectly') sourced >;-(. OTOH: it WOULD be particularly more useful if people -- such as maybe yourself -- focused on POSITIVE contributions. Fix stuff. Make it better. Vs. being righteous Wiki-cops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Doon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has all life on Earth descended from a single bacterium that mutated to make the final optimization in the universal genetic code? Frank Layden (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on the List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities are mathematically incorrect. You are saying (for the American Airlines Flight 11 entry) that 1,600 + 81 + 11 = 1,700 as opposed to the correct math which says 1,600 + 81 + 11 = 1,692. You are also saying (for the United Airlines Flight 175) that 900 + 56 + 9 = 1,000 when the original and correct number is 965. I am considering this vandalism. Please let us let the issue drop here. Thanks and Happy New Year.--Godot13 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Prosfilaes, a couple years ago you gave me some advice regarding an image I wanted to upload. You concluded it would be safe this year, and so I uploaded the file shortly after newyears. I listed it as {{PD-old-70}}, but I just noticed a very important warning in that template: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." Well, I took a look at Commons:Copyright tags#United States, but so far I'm not finding one that matches the conditions you originally described. Can you help me figure out how this file should be tagged?

Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hej,

regarding this edit: if 'crew' is seen as 'the group', 'it' would be correct. However, 'crew' can also designate the people in the group, in which case 'they' is better. So, your edit makes sense, but the summary was (in my opinion) flawed.

Richard 08:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know where the template was located... Also, my edit didn't violated WP:Crystal --Prcc27 (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

read this[3] instead of undoing edits you don't know....William 20:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what any WikiProject says if it involves posting knowingly false material. That template says "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics"; so long as it says that, it's a lie for those incidents not to be in italics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, 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. Your edit summary is a personal attack and uncalled for. ...William 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a personal attack like the last post on my talk page? You repeatedly changed a page so it contained lies. Repeatedly. I'm not sure how I was supposed to be nicer to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]