User talk:Koopinator

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. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New decade header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Re this edit summary: The

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of White Flags.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of White Flags.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) 02:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lichess Logo 2019.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) 17:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vegetarianism per Dutch political party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your positive feedback on my edit on the

@

Kelhuri: No problem. I had made Flag of White Flags - Infobox version.png back in 2019/2020, but I wasn't able to recreate the original flag as accurately as you. How did you do it? Koopinator (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of White Flags.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of White Flags.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) 17:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

William Marshall (British Army officer, born 1889) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Marshall (British Army officer, born 1889) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Which is about a sobriquet, not the number of Muslims in London. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I figured the number provided useful context. I mean, you have this map about the density in specific regions, but no total for the entire city. Koopinator (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not sure the map should be there either. I'll look at that. 'Context' without a source mentioning the sobriquet = original research. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goku vs. Superman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for a true goat.

Borysk5 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

baa Koopinator (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1890s, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matabele War, Spanish Africa and Franco-Dahomean Wars.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bombing of Cologne in World War II into Gau Cologne-Aachen. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I already did attribute the text. My edit on 12:28, 22 August 2023‎ said "Note: the prior edit added content from Josef Grohé and Bombing of Cologne in World War II, see those page's histories for attribution." Koopinator (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A "bare URL and 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

My very best wishes SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. Koopinator (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 6, 1945. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) well thanks again Koopinator (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello @Koopinator, do you perhaps have a picture of the tribal king/minister Salemai or any of the tribal leaders that were involved in the Tribal Revolts for that matter? I need them for a project that im making currently. DutchPlanDerLinde14 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Koopinator (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Koopinator. I get that you're anxious to keep collage images at the Decades pages. But, aren't you overdoing it, by adding notifications about the re-opened RFC on the pages themselves? I mean, haven't you already placed notices at their talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If such notices are acceptable for template deletions, they are acceptable for deleting collages. Koopinator (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I still don't understand why you pushed to have the RFC re-opened. The consensus to delete covered only Year pages. Not Decade or Century pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:DementiaGaming interpreted it as applying to decade pages and I felt like, if I challenged him on the basis that "the RFC only applies to years", he would say something about the "spirit of the RFC" or that I'm taking the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. And given how malformed the "remove" arguments seemed to be, I felt I had a better shot if I tried to overturn the result outright. Koopinator (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for 'remove', concerning Year pages isn't likely to change. It would be best if you & Randy, would agree for that RFC to be closed as such. Then you both can open up a new RFC concerning Decade, Century, Millennium pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments would change by increasing the relevant timespan by 10, 100 or 1000 though. By what limited test-run Dementiagaming has done, we can tell that the editors (including you) would vote the same. I'm hoping that the closing admin judges the weight of arguments in "No consensus" or "It's up to local talk pages" (spirit of

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY

) or something the like, or ideally "Keep".

I would prefer the original 30 day extension remain instated. Koopinator (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been instated. Any administrator or uninvolved editor can close the RFC, at any time. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the RfC only concerns year pages and not decades, centuries, etc.? I thought it covered everything, and was a way in to remove collages everywhere on Wikipedia. Are some of the years favored over others (i.e. is there a count of how many year pages have collages?). Thanks. And the RfC should be kept open for a couple weeks, these holiday weeks are a time when less attention is paid to going-ons on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I realize you're both determined to 'keep' images collages in all the pages-in-question. I hope, if the RFC is closed again with the same result. You'll both accept that result & that your initial refusal hasn't begun a bad precedent. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia process gives me a right to challenge the results of any AFC or AFD. I will relent when that right reaches its conclusion (or, less probably, when I am persuaded that "Remove" has good points), and doing so would only follow existing precedent. But, I will use AN as you requested. Koopinator (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like the Year pages will be burdened by never-ending disputes over what images should/shouldn't be in the image collages. Too bad, as I suspect most of the 'keep' editors care only about the image collages & very little about the Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and Dementiagaming have clearly stated the "remove" result is a foregone conclusion, I don't see why you're worried.^[sarcasm] The ability to dispute article content is an integral part of the Wikipedia process. Koopinator (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please reverse your recent changes. There has been no such decision. This is simply disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collages: "I find weak consensus to keep the collages." "As for where to go from here, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so." - Please reverse your recent changes. Koopinator (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't allow a non-admin closure for a controversial discussion like this. If you won't reverse your changes, someone else will do it for you. Deb (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this RfC, any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.

Perhaps bring this to

WP:AN if you disagree with the result? Koopinator (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There has been no decision and no result. That initial closure was overturned, and clearly that was not the only reason for overturning the closure. Please stop trying to force through your preference and reverse your recent edits. Deb (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a decision and there has been a result. The RFC was closed on 15:25, 10 January 2024 with a weak consensus to keep the collages. If you wish to challenge the result, go to

WP:AN. Koopinator (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to know that I replied to your recent comment about including Neil Armstrong in the lead. I didn't realise that you deleted your comment so I accidentally replied to someone else. Have a look in the edit history for my response if you're still interested. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan chiefs has been nominated for merging. 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. Mason (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Koopinator. Thank you for your work on

Thanks for your work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]