User talk:Bagabondo

Ways to improve Beowulf: A New Verse Translation

Hello, Bagabondo,

Thank you for creating Beowulf: A New Verse Translation.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

While it is important to show that the book exists, and the topic seems to be notable, we can't use a piece of writing as a reference for an article on that piece of writing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Utopes}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Utopes (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing infobox images

Hi, I don't know what the overall consensus is on this, but on Entertainment topics, we have a custom of placing a note on the Talk page and soliciting opinions rather than unilaterally changing the image in the infobox. Often, infobox images are arrived at after quite a lot of dispute or discussion and consensus-building, and we hope to gain WP:CONSENSUS before such a visible change to the article. As you can see, I objected to the Luke image being changed. Please consider that there might be a standing consensus before changing infobox images in the future, thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizium23, I replied on the talk page for Luke. I agree with your reason for reverting my change. Bagabondo (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Against the Christians

added a link pointing to Paul

Galilee

added a link pointing to Phoenician

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aesop

I'll explain the reversal of your latest edit on this subject, which is ultimately based on the WP:OFFTOPIC guideline. That article is about Aesop the individual; there is a separate article on Aesop's Fables and their possible origins where the claim by Babrius might belong, but even then all that stuff about Ninus and Bel seems to me of doubtful relevance. Possibly a more appropriate place might be in the article about Babrius himself since, being of 'Syrian' origin, he was closer to the story-telling tradition in that region.

As an editor, you have a duty to find the best context for claims of that kind; in this case you have to decide whether the view of Babrius was generally held (and so belongs in the fables article) or whether it was just the view of one author, in which case it would belong in the article about him. Even before this, however, you need to look at the WP:SOURCE policy, which states that the source must be accessible. In the online source you give the name of Babrius does not appear in the opening paragraphs of the article; to see the rest one needs to have a subscription and you'll find that such references are deprecated. It may be that the information is repeated by someone else, but you would need to search for it. Good luck with your research. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your courteous reply. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Edit summaries are supposed to be brief. To judge by several of yours recently, if they need so much explanation then they are contentious and should be discussed on the article's Talk page first. WP relies on WP:CONSENSUS and co-operation between editors. It's now time you get to know editing policies better, of which I see you have been reminded previously. You need to be wary of getting a reputation for WP:EDITWARRING. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Achilles and Patroclus

added a link pointing to Achaeans

Galilean

added a link pointing to Julian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zach Hadel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zach Hadel 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/Zach Hadel 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.

‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rudolf Simek into Germanic peoples. 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) 17:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dream Your Dream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese South Korean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Worthington moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ian Worthington, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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} 12:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited W. G. Hoskins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environmental conservation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laudanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lestat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ian Worthington

Hello, Bagabondo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ian Worthington, 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) 13:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to John Hurt. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Wisdom literature, would you be interested in a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 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) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Existentialism § Four men in the image collage, 2025

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Existentialism § Four men in the image collage, 2025. Peloneous (t)[c] 22:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack H Breslow self portrait.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack H Breslow self portrait.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bagabondo. If you're planning on adding this file to Jack H. Breslow please do so as soon as possible because non-free images which aren't being used in at least one article fail non-free content use criterion #7 and are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. In addition, since you found this image somewhere online, please add a link to the website where you found it to the |source= parameter in the file's non-free use rationale to make verification of the file's copyright status and provenance easier. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. Understood, I'll put it in the associated article right away. I'll also look for the website where I found it (I saved it to my phone a few days ago via a Google image search, so I'll find it again). Thank you for the heads up. Bagabondo (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, it's still possible that someone might nominate or tag the file for deletion as "replaceable non-free use" per WP:FREER if they're able to find a freely licensed equivalent image of Breslow (perhaps an old photo that's no longer or never was eligible for copyright protection) to use in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. I'll see if I can find such freely licensed equivalent images of Breslow while I'm at it, there might be one that's a better fit anyway. Bagabondo (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a free equivalent is found for the main infobox, this might still be OK as non-free representative example of Breslow's artistic style/technique; the case for that type of non-free use would be strengthened if you can sourced critical commentary about either this particular work or his particular style and add that to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. I’m having a hard time finding the image again, but I reached out to a website that appears to be the estate of Breslow about the self-portrait and asked if they have any other images that can be used instead. Maybe I should’ve also asked if the self-portrait is copyright protected in the first place. Bagabondo (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, the estate of Breslow actually got back to me and sent a full image of the portrait I uploaded (they said they used it for some auction postings), and that I can feel free to use either version for the Wikipedia article. Should I re-upload the image under a different status, or is there a way to change that with the upload I already made? Bagabondo (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia use only" types of licenses are too restrictive for Wikipedia and Commons purposes (see c:COM:LJ and WP:COPY#Gudielines for images and other media files for more details); so, the file will need to be treated as non-free unless Breslow's estate is willing to give its WP:CONSENT/c:COM:CONSENT: see c:COM:THIRD#Content where you have inherited the copyright for some ways the file could be licensed, but c:Template:PD-heirs could also work for Commons. One of the requirements for non-free content is non-free content use criterion #4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion); so, if you can find the painting published anywhere online or in print, then that would help with that criterion. You could try a reverse image search if you remember finding the image online but just don't remember exactly where. It would be great if you could find out more about the provenance of the work since that would further aid in assessing its copyright status. Anyway, since you've been in contact with the estate, you could ask if it has a photo of Breslow that it wouldn't mind releasing per WP:PERMISSION. Even a non-free photo would probably be a bit better for the main infobox than the self-portrait, which might be better in the body of the article where Breslow's artistic style is discusssed.

Finally, dealing directly with copyright holders can work great when it comes to finding images for Wikipedia, but I've heard it can also be tricky because what Wikipedia wants and what the copyright holder wants might not always be in sync. Copyright holders are, for sure, free to act in their best interests when it comes to image licensing, but those interests don't also mesh with Wikipedia. I've heard of cases where a copyright holder tries to get changes made to article content when approached about images, which could create a WP:COI type of situation. It does look like some of Breslow's works are still being exhibited or scheduled for exhibition, and some are even being sold at auction; so, his estate could still be benefiting commercially from his work. I tried Googling for this particular image and couldn't find it; I did, however, find other examples of Breslow's work online and some of these might be easier to support as non-free content because their provenance can be more clearly established if you're finding it hard to sort this particular one out. I didn't really find any photos of Breslow himself online, except for perhaps this one showing him eating French fries. Most likely that's a personal photo taken by a family member or friend given the name of the Instagram account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough information. Last night I emailed the estate with the template you linked to and the head of the estate just got back to me saying they made a Wikipedia account yesterday and uploaded the image on their own (here's a link they shared), I don't really know if they uploaded it with the appropriate copyright permissions/status. Bagabondo (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a Wikimedia Commons administrator about the file. This person is also a Wikipedia administrator and a Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member who's very familiar with file licensing and why files end up being deleted. It's their opinion that further verification that the uploader of the file is Breslow's heir is the best way to ensure that the file doesn't end up being deleted from Commons. The best way for the uploader to do this would be for them to send a c:COM:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT. They should try to use some sort of "official" email address to help make their identity easy to verify. This should not be seen as a sign of disrespect towards the file's uploader and is quite common when it comes to uploads of files such as this.

A possible alternative to email verification would be for the uploader to post the same image of some official website or a verified social media account under the same type of license, The uploader could then log in to their Commons account and add a link to said website to the file's description. As long as it can be verified that the uploader is indeed Breslow's heir and thus the presumed copyright holder of Breslow's works, verification via a website should be OK. Ideally, it would be best that the posted image (i.e. the proverbial "horse") predates the one that was uploaded to Commons (i.e. the proverbial "cart"), but it might not matter as long as the copyright holder's identity can be verified.

If you want to pass this information along to the uploader, then great. Otherwise, there's a good chance the file will be tagged/nominated for deletion and then deleted if its license can't be verified. If this happens, the uploader will be notified via their Commons user talk page, but nothing more. So, if they're not an active Commons user, they might not notice what has happened until after the file has been deleted. They can still resolve things by email even in that case and request the file be restored, but it's just one more thing they'll need to take care of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. Sounds good to me, I just let them know about the consent email and shared a link to it. Looks like there's a template there in the email, and if they were able to create a Wikipedia account and upload the image then I think they can figure out the consent email. I also mentioned the alternative to email verification (official website/social media account), just in case. Bagabondo (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accounts are, I believe, global for the most part; so, the same account can be used to edit any Wikimedia Foundation run project like the various Wikipedias, Wikimedia Commons, Wikitionary, etc., and whoever created the Commons account shouldn't need to create another account for Wikipedia. They also shouldn't need to reupload the same image again. Even if it's been deleted, they can request a c:COM:REFUND instead. Since they uploaded the file to Commons, though, they should follow the instructions in c:COM:CONSENT if they're going to email VRT. Any email sent to the Wikipedia VRT email address will eventually get sorted, but the Commons VRT email address seems specifically set up to handle media content while the Wikipedia VRT email address also deals with text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. Copy that, he emailed me a bit ago saying he filled out and sent the email to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org address. So if the consent email looks good on the administrators' end, it'll update the status of the image on Commons to reflect that? Bagabondo (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to update anything from hereon since the VRT member who reviews the email will take care of what needs to be done. Whoever sent the email should receive a reply containing a VRT ticket number. This is like a case number; so, they should keep a record of it. If there are any issues with the email, the reviewing VRT member will add the template c:Template:Permission received to the file's page and then contact whoever sent the email explaining what still is needed. VRT can't discuss the details of any emails it has received on a Wikipedia or Commons pages, and it will only discuss such details with whoever sent the email via email; so, if you notice that template has been added to the file's page, you miight want to ask the emailer to check their inbox for an email from VRT. If, on other hand, the VRT member reviewing the email feels everything is in order, they'll add the template c:Template:Permission ticket to the file's page to let others know copyright holder consent has be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Buddhaghosa

added a link pointing to Sinhalese

Coram Boy (play)

added a link pointing to Imperial Theater, New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Illustrated Dune.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Illustrated Dune.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:With a Little Patience.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:With a Little Patience.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under the non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 15:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack H Breslow self portrait.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack H Breslow self portrait.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hey Bagabondo

In general, per Wikipedia, we only need to link the first mention of a word or phrase; you don't have to link that word or phrase after that first linking. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Littleolive oil. Sometimes I lose track of if a word/phrase has already been linked to in an article. I’ll be more precise in that regard. Bagabondo (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]