Mramoeba

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you bot and bot handler. You do excellent work. Mramoeba (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I can send wikilove to a bot but you do a fine job, little automated script thing. Mramoeba (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Storybook Dads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minidisk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Storybook Dads at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Association of Black Humanists a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, thanks @Barkeep49:. I looked in TW but I didn't see the dropdown next to it, I've not done it before. I'll do it the proper way next time. Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK. I thought it was a vandal on that page.

Akrasia25 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why thank you, I am a big fan of goats. The section removed was basically a list of plaudits from various tabloid sources. Mramoeba (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the article "Auditing (Scientology)" you changed something to : "It is claimed he E-meter aids the auditor in locating subliminal memories ...". To me it seems that, in this sentence, before "E-Meter" there is something missing. Would you please correct this?. --Steue (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think it was a typo (he - the), but i've reworded it anyway. Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Try freebmd.org.uk, the only birth of a Shazia Mirza in the West Midlands between March 1973 & December 1983 was in the third quarter of 1980. [1] - Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The mother's name is different, according to other sources. But thanks for the useful tool there. Mramoeba (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe I have found her @Cabayi:, she has altered the spelling of her birth name very slightly. The records for her siblings come up with the same mother's name so I assume it is the correct one. Her publicist isn't going to like it though. Under the circumstances, should we use this source or should we respect that she clearly (judging by the number of times she has used a different date in RS) would prefer the public not to know her age and leave it blank? Appreciate your thoughts. Mramoeba (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not her PR service. Given a fact, with a reliable source, go with it. The source you found has the benefit of also falling in the right quarter of the year, which mine did not. Good work, Cabayi (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you are right of course. Mramoeba (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have added a new link to BDM website as the ones posted on the talk page no longer work. New link is:[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E39A:ED00:F033:9A3E:E129:ABE1 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Koestler Trust logo.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) 17:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

...as a reliable editor at a popular television site, that of Dakota Blue Richards. I did my best correcting two paragraphs to source, there, but as far as I can tell, the whole of the article is a morass of loose referencing, and so plagiarism (including, among my corrections, both unsourced quotes, and lifted text that should have appeared in quotes, with citation). I call this to your attention because you appear to care about this article, and have a proper understanding of the need for sourcing purported factual content in BLP articles. With regard, a teacher. 2601:246:C700:2DB2:4862:8A80:CA6B:3422 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The page definitely needs work. Wikipedia takes copyright and plagiarism seriously and it should be removed whenever it is found so thanks for that. I will take a look when I get free time. Mramoeba (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the worst of the page and Earwigs copyvio gives the page a clean result now the offending text is in quotation marks. I strongly suspect the page is neither up to date nor complete and many citations are still missing but hopefully others will come along and fill those in. The header tag remains. Feel free to make further edits as necessary. Mramoeba (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there how are you? I noticed you're one of the few members in the addictions and recovery project. I thought if you had time and I could interest you could assist me as many others have with Digital media use and mental health pre FA nom.

Theres a few related page move / terminology discussions 1. Here (social media addiction) 2. Here (Internet addiction disorder)

I have had a lot of input from others here for considering the FA nomination, Digital media use and mental health, if you have any further input!

Thanks so much for any thoughts!

Also many thanks to the extensive involvement of User:Doc James, User:Casliber, User:Farang Rak Tham, User:Seppi333, User:Twofingered Typist, User:Bondegezou, User:FeydHuxtable and others. --[E.3][chat2][me] 00:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look, thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please talk about your revert here -- there are formatting issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveadreamagain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, don’t know what happened there but I somehow put the cite in the wrong place although it looked ok in preview. Mustn’t edit on phone! Regarding Hemant Mehta, as far as I can see he is himself notable, as a prominent atheist and respected author etc. and as the information isn’t controversial or contentious it should be fine, even if it is a blog, particularly as it is now backed up with another source. The section at WP:RSSELF says “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” so I took that to mean he is fine as long as we don’t use contentious things which we can’t back up with other sources. Mramoeba (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

No way I could edit on my phone -- I'd probably end up deleting Wikipedia by mistake! I take no issue with the content, just the source. If there's an independent article saying the same facts, then Mehta isn't needed. I don't think an author like that is acceptable for facts in WP. Leaving him there certainly builds his credibility, but that cannot be a legitimate purpose. I've never heard of him referenced as an expert on things like cases, as he is a teacher and activist. I do not agree that he is an established expert on the subject matter referenced, which is a court case -- he is not even a judge or a lawyer. The FFRF articles loses nothing by deleting that reference. Ihaveadreamagain 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I hear you. I still disagree but I looked at the link and it appears to be linked from an emailed campaign or newsletter from Friendly Atheist so could be construed as activism. Either way the text should still stand without it so nothing is lost. Mramoeba (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Please do have a look at upcoming articles Draft:Ex-Muslims. If topics interest you then do contribute towards expansion of the same. We are also looking for inputs @ Draft talk:Ex-Muslims#Next ?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’ll take a look. Cheers. Mramoeba (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [3] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your efforts Sgerbic, I will take a look. Mramoeba (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikibear47 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply