User talk:Needsmoreritalin

Welcome!

Hello, Needsmoreritalin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!--Shirt58 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Creeper.ogv

Thanks for uploading File:Creeper.ogv. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Slavick

Hi there, I reverted your addition again per WP:BLP. To learn about citation, check out Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:SOURCE. Please do not repost possibly prejudiced statements without citations. Statements such as "what Israel did to defend themselves..." are very prejudiced. A non-biased way of saying it would be "that Israel's action in the 1967 War were...".--TM 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel B. Robertson

I noticed that you added a trivia section to that page. Generally, trivia sections are discouraged. Also, don't forget to use edit summaries. I'm assuming tha you added that information since you are likely watching WWII in HD right now. Good job with the rapid addition of information and happy editing! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I live in Maine and thought that it was interesting that it happened off the coast here. It is so hard to find any information on the ships that were here during WWII. Ft. McKinley on Great Diamond Island in the Casco Bay was built for defending the harbor in 1899. It was decommissioned in 1945. The channel between GDI and Long Island was an anchorage for the North Atlantic Fleet. I can't find ANYTHING about it and tried getting photos from the Navy, no luck.

Cheers!

(Needsmoreritalin (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:3R

You are in violation of WP:3RR, the policy created to avoid edit wars like the one you've begun. I strongly advise you to quickly revert yourself or you will be reported.--TM 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia policy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." The information you have repeatedly re-added is sensationalist. If you have reliable sources (not your blog, your radio show or other media you created), then show it. Otherwise, your edits are entirely unhelpful and will continue to be removed with prejudice. I have reported your actions [1]. I am also reporting your edit-warring [2].--TM 03:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom. I really do not get this at all. To say a direct quote is sensationalist is ludicrous. The ultimate proof is a direct source and in this case the voice of the subject of the article is that direct source. You can report me for anything that you like and you can ban me from editing this page. That just goes to show that you refuse to accept the fact that Mr. Slavick made these remarks for whatever reason you have. There is nothing about the content that puts Mr. Slavick in any more danger than standing in Monument Square on any given Wednesday with a sign that says something about his political views that others may find offensive. The ironic part is that you and I are probably the only people that look at this page. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Needsmoreritalin reported by User:Namiba (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to USS Yorktown (CG-48), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. - wolf 05:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolf. This is a bit complicated, so perhaps you can assist me. Here is Tico getting towed for scrap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFHNwbN2EW0 I know she left Philadelphia last September. And Gates was scrapped in 2017. (https://www.recycling-magazine.com/2017/08/17/recycling-uss-thomas-s-gates-begins/) So its really process of elimination, more than a direct source. What would be the best way to present this? Can the photo at least stand. I stitched together a number of images to make a high res image of the Yorktown so users could appreciate her "close up" without being able to see her like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needsmoreritalin (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the edit I reverted, you had removed sourced content and replaced it with appearred to be unsupported content. That is typically known as original research. As for the your reply here; youtube videos can be problematic as sources and they are not always accepted (see WP:YT for more info), but the second link you provided should be ok to attach as source specifically for the scrapping of Thomas S. Gates. It doesn't mention Vincennes, but that ship's article notes it as being scrapped, so you would likely find a source there you can use. (Sometimes just the linked wiki-article is fine, but sometimes people will want an actual source attached). As for your photo, there doesn't appear to be anything in it to indicate that is Thomas S. Gates or where it is, or when, but I'm not an expert on image use (which can be complicated on Wikipedia), I would suggest asking the Help Desk. Hope it works out. - wolf 15:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Most often I just post images. The image is of Yorktown. The Bunker Hill (CG 52) was the first with the VLS system. So the twin rails you see on the bow and stern were for launching missiles. The first flight of Ticos' were all sunk or scrapped except Yorktown. Being that its the only flight I Tico afloat, I know that this image is of Yorktown. Like I said, process of elimination. So I'll start with that. Unfortunately NAVSEA is horrible at updating their inventory. But maybe I can reach out and ask them to update their site so I can link to it! I'll do my best. I appreciate the info too.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red knot (2)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in Delaware Bay, New Jersey.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Social flycatcher

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Social Flycatcher.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grey plover

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:BBPlover Scarborough Marsh.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden-crowned kinglet

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Golden-Crowned Kinglet EBFNWR.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brewer's sparrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Las Cruces. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hi Needsmoreritalin! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Red fox and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I added a featured picture to the species box. Did the edit have to be reverted because it was labeled as minor? Needsmoreritalin (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks like it was reverted by another editor who took the view that a second infobox image was "not required".

I just wanted to let you know about what minor edits are meant for. Belbury (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. That's cool. I have adjusted my behavior since your note and I appreciate the feedback. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do revert yourself

You may do the reverting yourself. I'm done of trying to help. Until the dispute resolution come to a decision, I will not do edits from today onwards, not anymore. Sorry for all the trouble I caused. Protector100 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot undo that edit. You have to. I understand that you are a new user and that there is a lot to navigate. But if you revert the edits back to the Status Quo Antebellum then you won't be in violation of the Wikipedia:3RR. However, if I revert it, then I would be in violation of the same policy.

That's why I was pleading with you not to make any changes pending the outcome of the dispute. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SnowyOwlAmericanBlackDuck.jpg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:SnowyOwlAmericanBlackDuck.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Please, please. Almost every image have issues. We will just wait for the moderator to launch Rfc. Protector100 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. And I am willing to let there be an RFC. I suggested that you bring this to dispute resolution because this is a difference of opinions. You did start a talk topic on the Snowy Owl page. Only I replied. And what I said was that if you felt an image improves the article, then add it. But I believe the Snowy with teh duck is superior to the other images.

Text is not a good conveyor of tone. I can only assume when you read what I have written that you read it like I am yelling at you. I want to assure you that I am not. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as superiority in images. No one is perfect, let alone image. You confirmed that the owl with duck is juvenile male. Protector100 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is fundamentally untrue. What is better, and not just on this particular set of images, but in general:

A sharp image of a wildlife subject, or a soft/blurry subject?

Color that reflects the actual appearance of the subject vs flat or oversaturated?

A large image that shows details or a small image that does not?

A properly exposed image, underexposed or overexposed?

An image that is clean or one that has digital noise or artifacts?

An unobstructed view or one that partially blocks the subject?

The snowy owl with the duck is well exposed, accurately depicts the subject, in action, with prey. It is equivalent in size to the most recent images you proposed and shows all of the necessary field marks, etc. etc.

The original image you proposed as a replacement (Bubo_scandiacus_male_Muskegon.jpg) was very small, overexposed and lacked clarity and detail. You can't make out any feather detail, and there is little contrast; everything is white.

The male image you want now is underexposed. You cannot see the eye color. The female image was taken with a wide angle lens and this distorts the appearance of the owl.

Yes, I made a judgement call that it is a young male. It was an irruptive year, and it was in Southern Maine. But it could be an adult female. I don't think it is, but you cannot tell. Do the research, see if there is a reliable way to tell, there isn't.

What is your issue with the image with the duck? Is it the duck? Is the image too graphic?

Are you a photographer? Am I using terms that carry any weight or do you judge an image on how you see it rather than considering any of technical issues? Here are some other snowy shots, including images from an owl release with Project Snowstorm's Norm Smith. | Snowy Owl images Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not live in the Western part of the world. And I do not know how to upload images to Wikipedia. And please don't start that original proposal again, as you said, it is indeed poor. Thus, I bowed down to your wishes to find FP, POTD, and QI image. About the male image you said underexposed, if you want to blame, blame those people who named it FP and POTD in the first place. Not every lead images of articles are perfect. I said it, my issue is not the duck nor graphic, but the owl itself, which is a juvenile. The website | Snowy Owl images supported the claim: One of the images is similar to yours, and the words "young male owl". First, you made a judgement call that it is young male, but now you said it could be adult female. Do you know what this is? Forgive me for saying this, if I do offend you, I apologise: This is false advertising. Also, there is no rule against having an image showing an animal in captivity as lead image, is there? And there is no rule requiring that the lead image must be image which draw readers in to read articles, is there? Not everyone wants to read articles about owl species, take the Africans, especially those of Kenya, who see owls as ill omens. This was all stated in the symbolism and mythology section of the Owl page. Protector100 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not offended me. I don't want you to think that you have. I am trying to understand your perspective, but I still don't.

The website that I sent you, is my own. The images you saw and the captions that accompanied them were all my work. I have 100's of images of Snowy Owls from Maine, some from New Hampshire, some from Massachusetts, New Jersey and even in Philadelphia.

Cornell University is the leading US institution for ornothology.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology Lists Adult Female / Immature with one image.

I think we can resolve our impasse. The Snowy with the duck as image 1 in the info box, the adult male in captivity as image 2 in the info box, with a caption that indicates that immature Snowy's and female snowy's look the same. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it. Also, take a look at this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roar-Solheim/publication/354162037_Aging_Snowy_Owls_Bubo_scandiacus_based_on_wing_feather_molt_patterns_Preliminary_results_from_ongoing_field_studies_for_ISOWG_Snowy_Owl_scientists/links/61288cf6c69a4e48795e0749/Aging-Snowy-Owls-Bubo-scandiacus-based-on-wing-feather-molt-patterns-Preliminary-results-from-ongoing-field-studies-for-ISOWG-Snowy-Owl-scientists.pdf. Juvenile snowy owls are much smaller than the adults And females are bigger than males. Protector100 (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these are subadults. They are full-size. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can resolve this ourselves, without RFC. I will give you answer one week later. Because I have important things to do right now, I will not be available till next week. Please tell the moderator to put on hold. See you then. Protector100 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]