Thanks for uploading File:Mario Vargas Llosa.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 02:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Mario Vargas Llosa.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).
Hello, Plumber, you moved Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblos, but I cannot find a record of a discussion occurring before hand. This is a controversial move. Please undo your work and start a talk page discussion or link to a proposed move discussion. There are two problems, sources use Ancestral Puebloans. Also Pueblos mean places - such as the indigenous Puebloan people's Pueblos in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. Please revert your moves, and start a discussion first. Thank you Netherzone (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can contest the move with a vote if you like, but this should be a routine non-controversial move since Puebloans was moved to Pueblo peoples. Puebloan is a dated term and is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Even Britannica prefers Ancestral Pueblo culture. Pueblos means towns in Spanish, but this is an English Wikipedia. Do you think Ancestral Pueblo culture would be a better article title? I considered that but it narrows the scope of the article a bit. --Plumber (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you did not read the article talk page. It is not an uncontroversial move since there was a previous discussion about moving the article from Anasazi to Ancestral Puebloans, then another discussion about moving the article from Ancient Pueblo people to Ancestral Puebloans. You did not start a discussion on the talk page, nor on the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to discuss your proposed changes. That would be best practices and acceptable processes. Unilaterally making a change like this is controversial. Please undo your changes and start a discussion or take it to requested redirect venue.
You made the comment on Talk:Pueblo peoples that we should differentiate between Puebloan and Pueblo peoples because Puebloan is "used more often" — however, this is not true. Pueblo is the common adjective and articles are named according to WP:COMMONNAME. There was a discussion ten years ago about moving the page from Ancient Pueblo peoples to Ancestral Puebloans. Since then the page Puebloans was moved to Pueblo peoples. This is entirely consistent with WP:C2D. I am can assure you I am aware of the Pueblo peoples. Why do you think the Britannica page on Ancestral Pueblo culture is not named Ancestral Puebloan culture if that is the WP:COMMONNAME? --Plumber (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are not moves. The page in question was moved in the first place from Anasazi to Ancestral Puebloans, after the old Britannica title changed from Anasazi to Ancestral Puebloans. However, since then the Britannica page was changed to Ancestral Pueblo culture, and the Wikipedia page for Puebloans was moved to Pueblo peoples. Since Pueblo peoples is the main article, renaming Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblo peoples is a noncontroversial administrative procedure according to the principles underlying WP:C2D, Consistency with main article's name. If you object to the C2D-based move you can start a move discussion on the article's talk page. If you go that far, may I suggest Ancestral Pueblo culture in line with the Encyclopedia Britannica article? --Plumber (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica is not the ultimate authority, and they do not dictate Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been many discussions about the article title, which were not taken into consideration when you acted (and are now are changing multiple articles to your own preferred version without discussion). The majority of sources use Ancestral Puebloans. Example: [1]Usage of Ancestral Puebloans Your redirect renamed the article and moved it to another title without prior discussion and without taking previous discussions into account, which would have been both best practices and considerate of the community. Netherzone (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Yesterday, an editing spree occurred when dozens of articles were changed to your preferred version without first gaining consensus. For example, templates were changed, and articles renamed to your preferred version without prior discussion - even though a discussion was taking place on your talk and in several other venues. These changes also introduced ambiguities, such as changing the Tiwa Puebloans to Tiwa Pueblo peoples. Tiwa is a language spoken by Puebloan people across several pueblo villages (sovereign nations), AND there is no such place as Tiwa Pueblo. BTW, you are using the article All Pueblo Council of Governors to justify your changes. I happened to create that article the APCG represents the living people of the 19 modern pueblos (not the Ancestral Puebloans. You are mixing apples with oranges. Please get consensus for your mass changes, as they are creating a lot of work for other editors, and are introducing errors. Please undo your mass changes across the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Ancestral Puebloans. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Wait, are you now arguing that your disruption was to Talk space rather than mainspace, and therefore isn't disruptive? Wow, I might actually set aside the time needed to take this to AN/I. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you reverted immediately after sending me this warning was in the talk space (actually, you should have reverted the edit before editing my talk page.) I do not believe this warning applies to Talk Spaces, only to discussions in the main space. I have never before been warned for archiving a talk page in my nearly 20 years editing Wikipedia. --Plumber (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for anyone who comes here in relation to the current activities of Plumber with regard to Ancestral Puebloans: I am literally 5 hours away from stepping away from my computer, and thus Wikipedia, for the next two weeks. I strongly encourage those who look to review their conduct, my conduct, the conduct of anyone else involved in the discussion, and take this to any venues that might be appropriate. I would actually do so myself if I wasn't pressed for time. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your vacation. Joe S. Sando is a great author if you want to read more about the Pueblos in your free time. --Plumber (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to read about Ancestral Puebloans, I'll find an appropriate scholar. But now it sounds like you're basing your entire position on a single person's work? --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
What are you referring to? I have not made any contested edits in the main space since your last warning, and repeatedly engaged in the issue on both your talk page and the article page. The current edits reflect your position, not mine. There is no need for the above template. --Plumber (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Your multiple edits here, in several waves, are often petty, introduce factoids of undue weight, and are altogether disruptive. Many of your changes also cast out years of hard-won consensus and will be reverted. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to deflect. You've now been warned by editors of two articles to stop with your disruptive, sometimes faulty, and frequently petty edits. Should you continue, you will be sanctioned. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please stop your disruptive editing.