User talk:Kurzon

I have had to "undo" your deletion. Please do not simply delete referenced content without an explanation -- it appears from this talk that you've been asked previously to refrain from doing that. Thank you. Croessus the king of lydia (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Scorpion frog sajjad jafari.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The article definitely needed curating, but that is not the same as acting as its custodian. The following past edits are particularly questionable:

1. your deletions of properly referenced statements,
2. your unreferenced original research,
3. your additions of off-topic information gleaned from other WP articles.

The innumerable individual changes give the impression of editorial incompetence; the invitation to recommend the article for Good Article status is uncalled for and deluded. I am also unhappy at your deletion of your talk page history, rather than archiving it.

Rather than bringing the matter up on the Talk page, or inviting Admin comment, I decided to come here first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: You could at least tell me whether I've improved anything. Kurzon (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The file File:Particles magnetism.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The file File:JJ Thomson exp1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kurzon

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username North8000 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, B-bar (Morse code), should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-bar (Morse code).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The article Bolt Action (wargame) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of significance or of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Scorpion and the Frog you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The article The Scorpion and the Frog you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The article The Scorpion and the Frog you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: A lot of your point seemed strangely petty. Like nitpicking. You didn't find any deep issues with the article. 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove illustrations of items that are directly referenced in the text. You have done this twice, removing the only illustration of a klappvisor, and more recently the only illustration of a fixed bavier and an unattached plate gorget. Are some images less than ideal? yes, but we are limited by what is available on Wikimedia. In covering a subject with many esoteric terms and little-known physical aspects, relevant coverage in illustrations is a high priority. Urselius (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gilbert Roberts (British Royal Navy officer), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WH40K Eldar Guardians.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kurzon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Military wargaming".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen your recents edition in the article. First, I think the terms aren't correct. As other user told you, the factual term is staged or scripted. Mock combater, parody... aren't neutral, looks like a anti-pro wrestling article.

Also, sources. The first section is sourced. Not described as mock combat, but performance art instead. I know, pro wrestling it's several things: its a theatre, it's a scripted fight, a choreogaphy. But your editions hasn't sources to support your claims. I included the sources and some parts of your editions, I think the current is a good approach. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Uh, is English your first language? Because your page makes me think you're Spanish. Mock combat and parody ARE neutral terms. I don't know where you got the idea that they are biased. Methinks you don't know English so well. Kurzon (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. No, English isn't my first language. As I said, User MPJ-DK told ""mock" is not neutral - staged is factual", which it's true. Most sources call wrestling staged or scripted. Sources in the lead say "performance". Also, Parody has negative connotations. Wikipedia says "is a work which is created to imitate, make fun of or comment on an original work." I prefer "pro wrestlers perform" or "pro wrestlers have characters", which is more neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: And how is "parody" offensive? This is all theater, and not meant to be taken seriously. Kurzon (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kurzon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "WATU".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't "fix" br tags. <br>, <br />, and <br/> all work exactly the same, so all you're doing is cluttering up people's watchlists. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's about the color coding in the editor. Kurzon (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not a sufficient reason to clutter up my watchlist, and those of other editors, with changes that are unnecessary but have to be checked out. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I have a right to make improvements to Wikipedia. Learn to live with it. Kurzon (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely LOVE your reverted comment: "Oh piss off you selfish twit." So for your singular convenience, you want to inconvenience countless other Wikipedia editors who have to check your edits changing "br" tags. Who, precisely, is being "selfish" here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well, perhaps I was being too harsh, but I was not trying to inconvenience anyone. On the contrary, I was trying to make things more convenient for anyone who uses color-coding in the editor. Kurzon (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. With this edit you deletion specifically referenced information without providing any explanation. Please don't do that, you know you shouldn't be deleting referenced info. There is a talk item on the talk page about it. It's clear you disagree with this statement for some reason, though it's been in the article for many years and is now very clearly referenced. Please take to the talk page if you have any issues on this, though not sure why you would. Canterbury Tail talk 10:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Fine, have it your way, I'll leave it as it is. Maybe I can get in touch with Rick Priestley again and he could clear some things up. It's not a big deal anyway. Kurzon (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well this is Wikipedia, WP:VERIFIABILITY. We have references that state that it's based on WFB, and the rules (the game portion) are very clearly based on WFB (and considering Priestly wrote both of them...). If you have references to the contrary then that's fair, but we'd need references. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Ghost (1990 film) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you give the proper reference for the things that you type such as example of dalton experiment?Agus Damanik (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Resurrection Man 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, can you search about the political ideas of those people during the reigns of Alexandre II, Alexandre III, and Nicholas II, and edit it? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.68.104 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1005889053 Take a look at this IPs edit. I think they are vandalizing but you know the article better than I Slywriter (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Kurzon,

I just had to revert an edit of yours to the article The Scorpion and the Frog (diff). You removed "written in Sanskrit" and put quotation marks in a blockquote template. The latter is discouraged by the Manual of Style, and for the former, you didn't provide an edit summary explaining why you removed that text. In future, I recommend mentioning in edit summaries your rationale for removing text or other article material. This will mean you won't get reverted by someone who didn't understand why you did it, as was the case here. Please feel free to edit the page again to re-remove the text with an edit summary explaining your rationale. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you removed the text again without providing an edit summary. Please could you at least explain here? Thank you, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@DesertPipeline: It didn't seem important. Kurzon (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject myself, so I think the best idea would be to ask on the talk page for the article whether or not it is important. I'd also advise leaving the text in the article until it can be determined whether or not it is actually important. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@DesertPipeline: I'm the one who put that text there in the first place. I changed my mind. I decided that the language of the Panchatantra isn't important in this context, just the location. If I talk about this on the Talk page I guarantee nobody will chime in because I am the only editor working on this article. Kurzon (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. In future though, please do consider leaving edit summaries, especially when removing article material – it usually makes the process of improving Wikipedia go more smoothly :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warhammer 40,000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kill Team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:WH40K Ork Nob.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 12:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kurzon, I recently reverted an edit you made at Joseph Stalin in which you removed content without explanation. I want to add my voice to the others I see above in asking that you please use edit summaries, especially when removing content from articles. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kill Team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Stop uploading copyrighted images that you do not own the copyright to onto Wikipedia. A load were just deleted for copyright violations, and you literally just re-uploaded them. They're being deleted again. Do NOT upload images that you do not own copyright to to Wikipedia, and once something has been deleted for blatant copyright violation do not reupload it again. Just because you found an image on the internet doesn't mean it isn't covered by copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And note, even if GW says they don't consider photos of their models to be copyright violations, you're still uploading photos taking by other people and they own the individual copyrights to those photographs (not the models) and its those copyrights that you're violating by uploading these random photos from the internet, not GWs. Canterbury Tail talk 17:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I totally asked these guys for permission. It's not my fault if they did not send confirmation emails to OTRS! Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You're uploading them with a statement of it being your own work, which they clearly aren't. If they have given permission then great, but until that's sorted you can't keep uploading images deleted for copyvios. Canterbury Tail talk 18:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I owe you a longer explanation on why I reverted you recently at this article. I thought you were jumping the gun. We've appealed for input and should wait a reasonable time for comments. If none come within (say) a month, then the next move would be to widen the appeal.

Meanwhile, I've been looking at allied fables. You're right about the possible connection with The Frog and the Turtle. In the 18th century translation of the whole Pilpay/Bidpai work (and we're looking principally for English language connections) the context in which the fable is told is concerned with ingratitude for benefits. And Ashliman groups the Bidpai story with Aesopic analogues. All three of those cited, however, have a moral suggesting that providential justice is at work, which is very different from the moral drawn from the scorpion and the frog. So even though there is an admitted connection between these stories, the conclusion drawn from them can be different.

As I said before, I was impressed by the fact that no less than three editors since 2010 have seen an additional connection with the older Aramaic fable of the scorpion leaving the ferrying frog unharmed. I've now found a Jewish source that does make a connection with the Aesopic story. Unfortunately, the Google Books pages break off just where the author is about to make the connection plainer. If you could find a copy of the book and look it up, that would be useful. The story is obviously concerned with Divine justice, which allows a suspension of natural law (the scorpion abstains from stinging the frog) when a higher aim (the punishment of an unjust man) is in view.

What we have, then, is a series of disconnections. Aesop/Bidpai have a scorpion and different creatures and are concerned with punishment of ingratitude. Their stories are bracketed on either side with reinterpretations of a frog and scorpion partnership coloured by very different cultures. Orson Welles tells the story cynically, in a 20th century atheistic context; Middle Eastern Jews, with a mindset (held in common with Islam) that nothing happens outside the Divine purpose, use the story in the context of what Ashliman calls "unnatural partnerships".

Since we now have a source that sees some connection between the stories (Welles' apart), I hope you'll agree that it would be a good idea to keep mention of the Jewish story in the article but not add comment (or my new source) while we wait to see if we can get any further comment. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have a hunch that if you searched some database of old folk tales, you will find a lot of hits for frogs and scorpions, and the fables will be of all kinds of things. Best to stick to the really strong connections. Kurzon (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Partisans 1941, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. @Kurzon please stop changing Justice League. Please revert your edits. The original article was much easier to read and contained more information useful to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.227.232 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This person has repeatedly removed important information from the Justice League article. They has also done so to many different articles. Multiple warnings have been issued. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@138.88.227.232: Oh I know all about getting blocked for edit-warring. I used to be quite a bad boy. I don't think you've got a case yet, particularly since you're an unregistered user and nobody else is taking part in this argument. Register an account for yourself and get some experience under your belt. Kurzon (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Space Marine Concept Art 1990.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for reverting your latest edit on the article Right-wing authoritarianism but you didn't provide any summary for it, and the same applies to most of your edits on that article. Since unexplained massive edits are very frequent, they could be interpreted by other users as disruptive rather than in good faith; please provide edit summaries for your edits in order to avoid further misconceptions in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: I put that table there in the first place, and then realized it doesn't belong in that particular article because it doesn't use the right metric. Kurzon (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Lev Nitoburg, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kurzon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Partisans 1941, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kurzon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lev Nitoburg, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gold foil conclusions.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 11:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tau Cadre Fireblade Colasanti.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:GamesWorkshopCopyrightPolicy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Whpq (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WH40K logo 2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Eldar Guardian WH40K.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sicilian Mafia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not delete properly sourced substantial sections without discussing this in the talk page first. I have had to "undo" your deletion. Please do not simply delete referenced content without an explanation -- it appears from this talk that you've been asked previously to refrain from doing that. Thank you. DonCalo (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Atom has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kurzon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Lev Nitoburg".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

These are two people, meaning an WP:ENDASH is required, not a hyphen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: But look at the URL. It is ugly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiments Kurzon (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The url is irrelevant. Also, I don't know what browser you use because mine shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Marsden_experiments Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: But the hyphen and endash look the same. Why is it important to use endash? Does a hyphen mess up some algorithm? Kurzon (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The endash is longer and we are speaking of two distinct things (MOS:ENBETWEEN). A hyphen is shorter and does not indicate two distinct things. Lennard-Jones is one person name Lennard-Jones. Geiger–Marsden are two people, Geiger and Marsden. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Commandos clone has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Commandos-style video games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The cycle is BRD. The D is missing. Take it to the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

Wanted to chat a bit more about that copyright. United States works enter copyright every year on January 1, and they do not enter on a rolling basis through the year. You're right that they expire on January 1 and not on December 31.

In 2023, works from 1927 entered the public domain following a full 95 years worth of time since that year. Since Superman was first introduced in a work published in 1938, he will have to wait a full 95 years after 1938 to become public domain in the United States. Using the difference of 96 between 1927 and 2023, this means that Superman would enter the public domain in 2034 in the United States. I didn't want to just revert your edit, and I appreciate abiding by the citation.

With all that said, what are your thoughts on changing the copyright date to January 1, 2034 with a note for American copyright? MonkeyBBGB (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Professional wrestling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Browning.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Professional wrestling. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. GaryColemanFan (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy notice since the OP did not notify you, as they needed. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Professional wrestling vandalism/edit-war/bias ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, rather than simply reverting my edit, please read my comment in the discussion section of the article and help re-write the intro with me. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Warhammer 40,000, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I just discovered a source for the story in an American magazine dated 1939 - It's only a snippet but the variant of the story is unlike any other you've discovered. It might be a clue to how Orson Welles came to know of it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. I've asked Google to release the full document as it might be in the public domain. I won't update the article until I've had a good look. Kurzon (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I contacted the Wyoming government and that book actually was published in 1987. Google miscategorized it. Kurzon (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I should not have trusted Google's dating, their errors there are notorious. I was once on the trail of an earlier version of a nursery rhyme and thought I'd found a late 17thC ref, only to discover the book was published a century later than what Google claimed! Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for references before 1933 you ought to do it in Russian (scorpion = скорпион, frog = лягушка). I haven't found anything myself. Kurzon (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I leave that particular frog-pond to you! Mine was a chance discovery...but we still have to establish where Orson Welles came across the story, and that might be an English language source. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sicilian Mafia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please do not revert relevant and properly referenced information. You don't own this article. DonCalo (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sicilian Mafia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. This is not the way to find a solution to deal with the issue. Please stop removing relevant and fully referenced content. DonCalo (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@DonCalo: Don't act like a little child. Kurzon (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I noticed that you made a comment on your talk page #December 2023 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, 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. Please refrain from personal attacks. DonCalo (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Professional wrestling shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 18:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Consider this to be a final warning. You're edit warring against a consensus you were a part of. You've already had multiple users accuse you of WP:OWN, and you've been blocked from this page before. If you remove that word again I'm going to have to report this at WP:ANI. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Atomic Theory. Please use edit summaries to briefly explain your reasoning. If you are just rewording it's not very important (or hard, just "reword"). But when you move or delete stuff its hard to decide what you are up to. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, glad to know other editors care about this article. Kurzon (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Kurzon, this is not enough of a response. After so many years of requests to use edit summaries, what's it going to take? Should we get the review of the community at a place like ANI? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I invite you to share your opinion and rationale for moving the page "Right-wing authoritarianism" to "Right-wing authoritarian personality." Please join the discussion at Talk:Right-wing_authoritarian_personality. Regards, Jcbutler (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Atomic Heart, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I guess those are the rules but isn't this a bit pedantic? We don't require citations for movie synopses, why should we require them for a game that any idiot can access and play? Kurzon (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What an odd response, "that any idiot can access and play". I just undid your subsequent edits. Plot sections do not need citations, gameplay sections do. Also, please do not unnecessarily remove references. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think my edit is better, it gives a more accurate description of the gameplay elements that gamers will understand. Kurzon (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and FMSky likely does as well. Polygon might call it a "BioShock-clone", but imagine the general reader reading the article on Atomic Heart: it makes more sense to call it a "first-person shooter with role-playing elements" to compare it with another game the general reader might not be familiar with at all. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And please, follow WP:BRD. Take it to the talk page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Atomic Heart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kurzon reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

${\displaystyle -\cdot -\cdot \cdot --}$ Kurzon (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk_pages_project#Reply_tool. I can't reply to your comment on Talk:Rutherford scattering experiments because you did not sign the comment. Using Add Topic and the reply tool avoids accidentally missing a signature. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I found it very upsetting that you deleted the section on Lichtman's other predictions, as they contained important details about his record (e.g. his 1984 and 2008 predictions coming 2 years before the elections, his 1988 prediction coming when Bush was 17% behind in the polls).

Wikipedia is meant to be an informational resource, not just something that lists contentious circumstances, and your edits removed a great deal of useful information.

I would like the original text restored, if you please. DanielXW1 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This should go on the Talk page for that article but whatever.

There is nothing noteworthy to say about a predictions which went smoothly. Kurzon (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That's my point, there is. He made them 2 years before the fact in 84 and 08, and even though the polls were 17% against him in 88. That's information that would be difficult to look up otherwise, particularly the articles cited. DanielXW1 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, as I understand it, an edit like this one should give the page of origin per WP:COPYWITHIN. Not a big deal for me. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rutherford scattering experiments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coulombs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand, you've been on Wikipedia for 19 years and have amassed more than 20,000 edits; surely you are aware that content needs to be reliably sourced and that unsourced content about living people is absolutely not allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As seen here, there is a 65.3% possibility of copyvio. So please do not remove the template until the copyvio is removed. Thank you. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's how these things work. Kurzon (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding unsourced content. With your tenure you are clearly aware about the requirements for material to be sourced. If you repeat such edits that I've recently undone I will escalate the matter. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I was reading in A. Pais Inward Bound about Bohr's first work in Rutherford's work and I realized these three paragraphs (on page 195) related to various discussions we have had. Perhaps you will be interested.

The first paragraph describes Charles Galton Darwin's theory calculations using Rutherford's nucleus and electrons distributed uniformly throughout the atomic volume. He says the result allows the number of electrons per atom (n) can be deduced from absorption of alpha particles with distance, given a known atomic radius. From Geiger/Marsden data he concludes that n is between 1 and 1/2 times the atomic weight. Note that this is a theory for inelastic scattering, so the model is different from elastic scattering.

• Darwin, C.G. (1912) A theory of the absorption and scattering of the a-rays. Phil. Mag. (6), 23, 901

The second paragraph in Pais describes Bohr's alternative to Darwin's work, which includes the effect of electron binding. Bohr's model is similar to a model Thomson developed for beta rays, but Thomson viewed alpha particles as atom-sized and thus did not apply his beta ray model to alpha particles. Bohr shows his approach gives better agreement than Darwin's.

• N.Bohr Dr. phil. (1913) II. On the theory of the decrease of velocity of moving electrified particles on passing through matter , The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 25:145, 10-3

The third paragraph in Pais highlights a sentence in Bohr's paper:

"If we adopt Rutherford's conception of the constitution of atoms, we see that the experiments on absorption of a-rays very strongly suggest, that a hydrogen atom contains only one electron outside the positively charged nucleus."

This then is the point at which hydrogen is known to have one electron.

I'm unsure where/if this fits into articles so I'll just leave here ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your efforts to tidy up this article. The name formats have become tangled, and it seems you didn't see my recent edit comment on the matter. I note that for whatever reason, it diverges from most species and biology articles in using Vancouver format for its lists of authors' names. This uses |vauthors=Doe JC, Smith RS instead of |author1=Doe, Joe C. |author2=Smith, Richard S. Obviously we shouldn't mix formats, and equally we are required by policy not to change citation format without wide consensus and good reason. Personally I'm no fan of Vancouver but there's no doubt that it's the established style here. If you want to change it, then make a case for last, first on the talk page, post it on the relevant WikiProjects, and it'll be discussed. Otherwise, we have to stay with Vancouver. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm completely nonplussed by your continued editing with removal of Vancouver format after my post above here. What are you thinking? You must have seen this on your talk page, and the brightly-coloured warning at the top of your screen notifying you of the message. We simply can't proceed with continued editing that is at once against written Wikipedia policy, against consensus on the article, and ignoring explicit discussion on your talk page. Please stop the de-Vancouver-isation, leaving the article alone until we have reached agreement on how to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't expect you will agree, but I am hoping you will at least try to have a open mind about the split of Rutherford scattering experiments. I think changing the math content to qualitative physics would significantly improve the article for the readers that come to read about the experiments and history. Such readers will stop at the first equation. On the other hand, readers keen on the math will be able to dig in to the math content in Coulomb scattering.

To give you a sense of how the second half of the Rutherford scattering experiments might look I created a quick draft in my User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/Rutherford. This still needs work but I wanted to plant the idea that the result could be good. None of the math content is going to be deleted, just moved into a context where it can be related to more than history. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I will wait until I see what you do with the Coulomb scattering article before I give my opinion. Kurzon (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your problem is that you don't know how to think like a student. You think like a professor. You havemultiple PhDs, you're a retired engineer. I am in a way a student and I was curious about the maths and I imagine other students will want this too, and they will go looking for it in the Rutherford scattering article. And like all professors I expect you to get annoyed when students go paddling another way instead of the neat path you had I mind for them. Kurzon (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Professional wrestling shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
For this. Slow-motion edit warring is still edit warring. — Czello ^(music) 06:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add that when I last warned you about this in January 2024 I called it a final warning before I took it to ANI/EWN. I could take it there now for that reason, but I'm going to hope we can avoid that by you dropping this now. Keep in mind:

• You have a history of being blocked for edit warring
• You have been blocked for edit warring this exact same edit in the past
• You have received several warnings now for this exact edit
• You have been p-blocked from this very article in the past
• Multiple users have said you have an issue with WP:OWN, both on this article and others
• You were part of the consensus to include the word "athletic"
• You have refused to engage on the talk page

In short it doesn't look good for you if it goes to a noticeboard. Your modus operandi of disappearing for a few months before quietly returning to delete the word also doesn't fool anyone; the edit history is there for anyone to see.

In short, knock it off. It's a clear case of WP:OWN, and, as I said, slow-motion edit warring is still edit warring. Any other reversions, even if it's a year from now, will go to ANI. — Czello ^(music) 09:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Pease don't remove the tag again. The lead paragraphs do not summarize the body. Look at Batman for comparison. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I know you want your writing to be the one that's live - because you have WP:OWN issues - but by reinstating informal language and wording that clearly suffers from neutrality problems, you're actively making the article worse.

You've done a lot of good on the article in introducing new and good sourcing, but if you stubbornly refuse to allow your writing to be improved (Wikipedia is a collaberative effort, after all) then I'll have to take this back to WP:ANI. — Czello ^(music) 11:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Professional wrestling shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 12:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Czello ^(music) 08:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Edit warring after blocks including an indefinite block for the same behavior and a partial block from the same article for the same behavior (ANI permalink).

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request this block be reduced to a topic ban. I am done with wrestling for now, I can do useful work in other topics. Kurzon (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your appeal should address the conduct for which you were blocked and explain how you will avoid engaging in the same sort of behavior in other topic areas. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I kept trying new edits which I hoped would satisfy Czello. In retrospect I should have proposed edits on the Talk page. That's what I'll do in the future. Lower my block to a topic block so that I can do useful work in other areas without stepping on Czello's toes. Kurzon (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to think that this is about Czello. It's not. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

@331dot: It's always about the people. I wasn't vandalizing anything, wasn't wrecking anything. I just pissed some people off. I can easily mend things just by staying away. Kurzon (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

When I mentioned a topic ban as a possible solution at ANI (), I did so hesitantly. The block log mentions the articles about Mafia, Lloyd Irvin, Wreck-It Ralph and most recently Atomic Heart as other places where the problem occurred, and it seems unrealistic to attempt finding a topic ban encompassing them all plus wrestling. The previous manual unblock was followed by the last two diffs of the following series: , , , , , , , , , , , . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Christ, if this happened to me at the office, I would have gotten a mild rebuke, not fired. Kurzon (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

In retrospect I should have proposed edits on the Talk page. That's what I'll do in the future. Kurzon (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not acknowledged wrongdoing, apologized, or even really explained your situation. You have an extensive block log and an ANI thread explaining that issues with your editing have persisted for at least two years straight. An unblock is a nonstarter here. I suggest you take the standard offer. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Without meaning harm, I edit warred. I wasn't trying to be an ass, I got carried away. I am not going to do this again. I'll stay away from the professional wrestling article. I request an unblock or at least a reduction to a partial block on the professional wrestling article. Kurzon (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have a problem with edit warring going back over a decade. You've made this promise to use talk pages to settle disputes and not edit war before, yet you keep doing it. To put it in terms of the analogy you posted above: you've already had the mild rebuke seven times by my count; in any progressive discipline regime you'd have got one mild rebuke, then a verbal warning, then a written warning, then put on a PIP, then maybe suspended without pay, and if you still kept going you'd be well on to being fired for cause. You're already one step past all of that, and still not getting it. Appeal denied; take the standard offer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock. I was blocked in July, and it has been six months. I was blocked for edit warring, for which I apologize. Kurzon (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'd support an unblock with a firm commitment to WP:0RR. Other admins may support WP:1RR. I don't see anyone accepting an unblock without any restriction, though. Yamla (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

OK with a commitment to 1RR

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you. You are restricted to 1RR from now on. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: - how do you feel about an unblock with a 1RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hi PhilKnight, the simplest and most convenient position is "no hope from my side but no objection either". So if there's edit warring again, I can say "I knew it". I have no idea. Yeah, it's been a while, why not. If each instance of edit warring comes with a 6-month block, the cost of edit warring might be high enough for this to be manageable by the community, noticeboard reports and administrators even if it happens again and again. There's not much to lose here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Part of being civil on Wikipedia is communication, including via edit summaries. In my opinion omitting edit summaries increases the chance of other editors reverting your change, something I think you should work to avoid. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I really think we should explain how the law of multiple proportions proves atoms are real. When I learned it, I had a real "ahh" moment and I want readers to have that too. Kurzon (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not asking for an explanation of an edit, I am asking you to use edit summaries. I'm hoping you will have an real "ahh" moment and begin to use them on every edit. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Co-signed. Edit summaries are our friends. They are for proficient collaboration between editors in a co-editing environment. Please explain your edits, especially the major ones. Thanks. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 18:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kurzon, I think we need your opinion/view/statement/whatever at User talk:PhilKnight § Kurzon has violated their 1RR restriction. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my attempt to write this as kindly as possible may have made it seem optional. I have blocked your account pending a response there or here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have changed it to a two-week block. In case you'd like to start a large discussion about this, see WP:GAB and the block log for details. When the two weeks are over, no worries from my side and let's just carry on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about a specific article ban? I can do useful contributions on other articles. Kurzon (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally don't see it as necessarily needed, contrary to the two weeks sitewide block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, when the block is over you will still be on a 1RR restriction, and any future transgressions will lead to longer blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Professional wrestling, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Professional wrestling) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term edit warring issues, battleground editing, and personal attacks.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Sennecaster (Chat) 22:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You have a long history of blocks for 3RR violations, battleground editing, and at least one citing personal attacks. Shorter term blocks clearly aren't working and you've blown through the good faith offered by two different unblockings from an indefinite block. Additionally, I have no idea why you thought saying something so misogynistic and rude, let alone about your significant other on a site viewed by thousands of internet strangers daily, would be appropriate in any context. If it's a joke, I doubt that makes it any better, and it shows a sheer lack of judgment and decorum that it takes to edit. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you know who my wife is? Kurzon (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Assuming that you'd like to return to editing Wikipedia at some point in the future, can I please ask you to consider what sort of response you are expecting to this question?

"Yes" would be creepy, "No" would be obvious (and pointless) and "I'm removing access to your Talk page for inappropriate use while blocked" the most likely outcome.

Seriously - when blocked, you should only be using your Talk page to discuss the block itself.

If you would like to appeal your block please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, otherwise it would be best if you found something else to occupy your time.

If you choose to carry on regardless, that's completely up to you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no wife. And even if I did, I edit Wikipedia through an alias, so she would not be embarrassed. I made that joke to highlight the silliness of what we were arguing over. It was not an insult. I didn't mean to offend anyone and I am sorry if I did, but I am a bit exasperated with how thin-skinned, uptight, and humorless Wikipedia people are. I watch a lot of American comedy and you Americans use vulgar jokes all the time to highlight important truths. You do it all the time in politics, as well as on almost all your Internet forums. Wikipedia was invented by an American and is largely funded by Americans. Maybe you're not American.

Do you know that I work hard to produce the content for the professional wrestling article? Yeah I make mistakes like any human being but I wish to get a little empathy from time to time along with the nitpicking over my choice of words. Kurzon (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and explaining things.

A lot of us aren't American (I'm English), plus we only have written text to go from so all of those valuable social cues that would usually help provide context are completely missing. When writing on Wikipedia (or the internet in general) I'll try my best to figure out whether my words could be misunderstood or problematic.

Honestly speaking, since this is the internet it's hard to find anything that won't offend someone, but in the case of the post that led to the block, it's pretty easy to see why it upset people as there aren't that many ways to interpret it. There was a bit of misogyny there too (the presumption that women are hard to satisfy and/or would prefer to lie to their husband over intimacy). That's something that's frequently found in (older) American comedy, but it ideally shouldn't be there in the first place.

Since we've got no idea who our audience is, I find it's best to err on the side of caution - we could be talking to someone who lives in a very religious country, someone who is experiencing sexual problems or fears their partner is faking, or something worse - there's absolutely no way for us to know this, so it's best to play it safe and avoid anything too inflammatory.

You also risk the audience losing sight of your message - in all the drama this caused, no-one was able to consider whether you were making a valid argument or not. I'm sure that's the last thing you wanted to happen.

TLDR: Jokes are totally fine - just don't aim them at a target, because you might hit someone else by accident. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That joke wasn't a jab at the wife, but at the husband, who can't accept that he is bad at sex and therefore insists his wife's orgasms are real. Kurzon (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate on that last point, the misogynistic implications of a "my wife" joke can indirectly affect all women editors. In proportion, there are already much less women than men among editors, and "jokes" like that one can easily drive them away, or make them feel unwelcome. Jokes, in all of their non-seriousness, still carry implications and social context shaping the specific ways in which the joke functions, and you can't fully divorce them from reality and expect all of your audience to do the same. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

American women make jokes like this on TV all the time. Kurzon (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)More generally, the misogynistic comments are emblematic of your persistent refusal to use encyclopedic language. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That was on a Talk page. On the articles, the language I use is the same as the academic books and journals I read. This is how the post-docs write, so why can't I? Kurzon (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

If post-docs use middle-school-level jabs like "fake" (rather than formal encyclopedic language) to describe subjects, we will ordinarily reject that. The bottom line is we go by Wikipedia's rules (policies/guidelines) in how we write, and we also leave our biases/opinions/feelings at the door. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

We should just WP:Revert, block, ignore — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Professional wrestling, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Discussions about your wife are wholly unnecessary. But listen/see this from Carter USM in 1992. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 23:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have no wife. I should have made a longer joke. Out of respect, I won't push this further, I will see you guys in six months. Chill. Kurzon (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Show proof in other projects before you appeal. Focus on content not your personal issues. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have been blocked from all projects, so I have no choice. Kurzon (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  You haven't been blocked elsewhere yet. Part of WP:SO is you need good contributions elsewhere. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Why can't "elsewhere" be other articles on English Wikipedia? Just block me from the pro wrestling page for six months. I guess I can do French but it's not my first language. Kurzon (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) If you're blocked from English Wikipedia then you can't edit English Wikipedia.

  You may want to consider Simple English Wikipedia instead, just be aware that they have a one-strike policy if you've been blocked on another project - they consider that you've already been fairly warned about disruption. Simple is often used for "rehabilitation" for blocked editors since it's similar to English Wikipedia, but please be extra careful if you choose to work there. There's also Wikimedia Commons, if you prefer. Whichever you choose, take a good day or so to read through their policies beforehand to lessen the likelihood of encountering any problems on your new project. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not a vandal. Kurzon (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, but any form of disruptive editing, including but not limited to vandalism, edit warring, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, can lead to a block. I was warned over unknown parameter errors and failure to WP:PREVIEW before publishing. Any other wiki, not just Simple English Wikipedia, is also often used for rehab too; there are some people who were blocked on native language Wikipedias doing some rehabilitation here on the English Wikipedia. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I understand why I pissed people off but "disruptive" is not the right word. If you look at it another way, the progress of the article was disrupted. I am the only guy in a long time to do any serious work on this article in a long time and the work I was doing was disrupted by my block. All because I was just slightly argumentative when somebody nitpicked what I was doing. So now this article is going to stagnate for another six months. I know I am not saving the world or anything by writing an article on professional wrestling, but I am not injuring anyone either. Really, how did I ruin anyone's day? Kurzon (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) If you want to appeal your block you can do so via the template, or you can follow the Standard offer and edit another project for six months and then submit an appeal.

  Continuing to debate the merits of the block here (especially with non-admins) isn't going to change anything about what happened. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Kurzon, I would suggest appealing your block at UTRS because endless discussions without placing an appeal would be unproductive. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: What do you make of all this? They tell me to go work on a different Wikimedia project, but English is my best language. Why not just block me from the professional wrestling article? I can work on some other English article. Kurzon (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-Sennecaster comment) The advice from Blue-Sonnet is a very good one. The fact is, the professional wrestling article is not the issue here. Your comments have crossed a line, and, especially given your previous behavioral history, a projectwide block absolutely falls under admin discretion.

There are many other Wikimedia projects in English, beyond Simple English Wikipedia: Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, while others like Commons are multilingual. So, I hope you can find a project you can contribute to! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's my personality that's the problem, it makes no difference where I go. If I work on other English articles, I might avoid contact with the same editors who take an interest in professional wrestling. Perhaps I will find an article that nobody pays attention to, leaving no possibility of squabble. Contrary to what you think, I do change with every rebuke. I am not as bad as I used to be, and I can demonstrate that on some other part of English Wikipedia as well as on any other project.

I don't want to edit Simple English because nobody uses it, so my efforts would not be worth much. I don't just want to scratch an itch, I want to do something meaningful. Also, the editors there would probably bash me for using overly sophisticated English. Kurzon (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)WP:Wikipedia is not therapy — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

While I understand that you have progressed as a person, you have been given several opportunities to demonstrate this throughout the years, and the last chance saloon doesn't serve free refills. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• If you want to work on something popular, Commons files are used on almost every Wikimedia project.
• If you want to do something meaningful & help other people, volunteer (there are plenty of charities who do online work).
• If you want to come back to English Wikipedia in the future, you make the effort to build a history of productive edits on a different Wikimedia project, as proof that you can work productively with others over a prolonged period of time.

This may sound harsh, but as much as you need Wikipedia right now, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs you.

You need to leave this alone & do something else for a while. It's up to you whether "something else" involves another Wikimedia project, but it won't involve English Wikipedia no matter how much you want it to. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If only Talk pages were like Reddit where you could just downvote a shitty post to oblivion and give the offender some negative karma points. Kurzon (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

All wikis are not social media platform. See WP:NOTREDDIT. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF and presume this wasn't aimed at me. I'm also going to stop posting here unless someone pings me directly.

You are free to remove any Talk page comments you wish, as only declined block appeals need to stay here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

On Reddit, if the community doesn't like a person's one comment, they can collectively censor that one comment throgh downvoting and punish the commenter with a few negative karma points. It's a softer and more flexible way than blocking to enforce community standards. Kurzon (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for clarification. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't edit comments after someone has replied to them, it makes it look like we ignored something important that you didn't actually say at the time.

Please see WP:REDACT. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry Kurzon (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

All good, I know Wikipedia guidelines can be confusing! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been doing this for more than 20 years, that's why the admins have lost patience with me. Kurzon (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wdym lost patience? You need to take time off here. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I already took a six month time-off. Kurzon (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: I was hurt by how you misinterpreted my off-color joke as a misogynistic insult. I don't think I've been assessed fairly. You Americans make these kinds of jokes all the time, I'm a bit surprised at you. Kurzon (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Off-color jokes are a form of misogynistic insults. The community is hurt by refusal to repudiate your comments. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't? Ok I am sorry that I didn't read the room correctly. Kurzon (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

A few things, since a lot has been said better than I can word it about appropriateness of jokes. Just because something is normal over here doesn't mean it's right; I've been jokingly called extremely racist things as part of standard American humor, for instance, and whether or not media reflects this, jokes that don't more clearly "punch up" to use comedian terminology are not appropriate. Drop a similar joke into a freshman year university debate to make a point and you'd get failed or removed from the debate pretty fast. Secondly, I still stand by my assessment that making such a joke shows a lack of judgment needed to edit, especially given that I saw a long history of repeated edit warring and battleground mentality across more than just professional wrestling. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wholeheartedly agree - @Kurzon I know this must be confusing since you've been given some advice that wasn't quite right or unclear, so you weren't sure what you should be doing.

I can see that experienced editors/admins feel that you should take some time away from English Wikipedia and follow the Standard offer; it's your choice whether you spend this time building evidence of working productively with others on similar English Wiki-projects (this is still my recommendation, because such evidence can completely change the outcome of an appeal).

Enough has been said about the reason for the block, so this post is just to clarify the overall recommendations for what you can do going forwards.

Of course, what actually happens next is totally up to you - I wanted to wish you well going forwards and sincerely hope that you can be unblocked in the future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your president isn't exactly a paragon of decorum. If this goes on in the White House, why not here? I judge you by the leaders you choose. Kurzon (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the fourth time you've brought up Sennecaster being American as a justification for your comments. This is not acceptable, and you are reminded that it is not the intended purpose of talk page access. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with an article ban? Just ban me from pro wrestling. Kurzon (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

TPA will be revoked if your next comment here is not a good faith unblock request. However, as other editors have noted, it's unlikely that such a request will be granted at this time. You should follow the advice given above and take the standard offer. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Chaotic Enby has already been over this above - I don't want you to lose access to your Talk page, but if you keep pushing things, revisiting points you've already made and refusing to accept the outcome then you'll end up inadvertently showing admins that the block was justified.

Even if you don't accept the outcome, sometimes it's best to just let things go. For your own wellbeing, please try to let this go - it can't be pleasant for you to keep focusing on something you currently have no control over. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, I am not trying to piss people off. I never wanted that. There's nothing wrong with a little conversation, isn't there? I would have liked Sennecaster to let me edit other articles, but I see the community really wants me to take a leave. See you in six months. Peace. Kurzon (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)