User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy

Archives —
SM: 2010 · 2011: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2012: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2013: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2014: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2015+
SQ: 2015 to 2019 · 2020: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2021 to 2022

Good article reassessment for Architecture of the Song dynasty

Architecture of the Song dynasty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Wow you changed your name! Greetings from Colombia. → Call me Razr Nation 06:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I did. I'm also not around here that much any more, as other hobbies (mainly TTRPGs) take up most of my time. Good to see you're doing alright! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Miller Center

Template:Miller Center has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Eleven years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. (sorry, missed it last year due to the name change) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:XCOM Enemy Unknown, illustration of the strategy UI.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gallery of distinctive unit insignias for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gallery of distinctive unit insignias 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/Gallery of distinctive unit insignias until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Bravo on completing whatever set Weberbauerella raimondiana was a part of. jengod (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jengod. I'm an admin over on Commons and someone nominated an image from an open access journal for deletion, not realizing it was correctly freely licensed, and that's how I discovered that there's a trove of freely licensed plant photos available. I've been uploading images from other articles in that journal whenever I have time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niiiice. Finding a good source opens up so many possibilities sometimes. Anyway thanks again and congrats. jengod (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block Rationale

Hello Squirrel Conspiracy, Yesterday, you blocked my Wikimedia Commons account without any specifics or rationale. Perhaps there's a reason there, but all that's written is "Spamming".

As a linguistics researcher, involved in language development for over 85 different micro-languages, I take that quite personally. Can you go into some detail regarding what was consider spam? Andrew J Olson (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edits, it appeared to me that you were attempting to funnel traffic to websites you own, such as theyneedthebible.blogspot.com, through the inappropriate use of external links, and you were using your Commons uploads as part of that attempt. If you disagree with this assessment, you can request an unblock on your Commons user talk page. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting advice on sockpuppet abuse problems

Hiya, I am new to wikipedia and I am interested in improving an article, Bali Aga. However, it is being continually harassed by sockpuppets of the user YilevBot, and you recently rolled back the article to remove their additions of copyvio images. Their (checkuser confirmed) sockpuppets recently readded images that are most likely copyvio, but I don't have any defininitive proof of them being copyvio and would like to know if I need proof to revert the edits, as well as what would constitute reasonable proof if necessary.

Also in general, many of the sockpuppet's low quality and misinformed contributions get through on that page. I think they harm the article greatly, but I do not want to contribute to an edit war reverting them. What do you think is reasonable for me to do as a new user to deal with this issue?

Thank you very much for your service to Wikipedia. After looking through your user contributions, I find it very reassuring that people like you are here to help maintain Wikipedia, and keep it in line with its purpose. 似た牌愛魔 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]