User talk:MaeseLeon

If you read the articles, you'll see the assertions of notability which make their significance become quite clear. They are no less notable than the bloggers from any other country, and just as influential within their own spheres. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Frequently cited on the mainstream press (esp. The Straits Times, including frontpage coverage) should easily meet the criteria for inclusion as Singapore bloggers. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogging is undoubtedly significant as a phenomenon, so I do not see why bloggers who are notable enough to be cited in other media do not have encyclopedic value. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of the blog's contents itself should not affect the value of documentation of these blogs on Wikipedia. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think that, on some level, you're not quite seeing the wood for the trees. On one level, you may not think you're "deserving" of an encyclopedia article, but your opinion about your own notability wouldn't really come into play in a Wikipedia article about you since (a) you couldn't create your own article as that would violate vanity policies and (b) you would have to be put through the same notability criteria anyway. The question you need to ask yourself when approaching an article is whether or not the subject conforms to Wikipedia notions of notability. It may very well be that all of these could be subsumed within a single "Blogging in Singapore" article. On the other hand, it may not, if there is enough substance within those subjects to be spun out on its own. However, you need to look at it in the larger context of where such articles belong, in a holistic fashion. Wikipedia is not paper, and Wikipedia aspires to, and needs to cover, areas other than the First World, especially since the blogosphere extends beyond that. Granted, media citation is not the be all and end all, but it is a helpful indicator. There is no checklist, and I can tell you for a fact that blogging is a worldwide phenomenon, and bloggers like Mr Miyagi, Mr Brown, Xiaxue, et al. are all very influential in their own spheres. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your note on Talk:Baianism and fully agree with you. Interestingly, I'm working on Blaise Pascal now, so clearly needed to approach a bit the topic of Jansenism and of the formulary controversy, background of this Provincial Letters. This led me to some editing here, and to surprisingly find in several points of Wikipedia a strong bias against Jansenism, and poorly written articles concerning efficacious grace and prevenient grace (strangely related by one - and only one - source to Augustinism, while efficacious grace did not mention Augustine and Thomas Aquinas' upholdal of them). I find it actually quite funny to see some editors who still feel strongly about a theological debate several centuries old, but then I guess that it surely retains its importance... for theologians. But this has clearly led to a misrepresentation of the topic on Wikipedia. Spirals31 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reveal that her birth date is official, not just a claim?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the above individual from List of the verified oldest people, since "verification" entails verification from an international body, rather than a national one, as national bodies have been known in the past to "verify" cases that are not true for their own reasons. International bodies provide a (relatively) more objective standard. I have reworded the criteria to make this condition more obvious. Cheers, CP 19:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to sign up and join this forum, which discuss many cases and claimants to the World's Oldest People, including Cortes. Some of the answers there will probably be far better explained than I ever could. Cheers, CP 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to get a wide variety of opinions now, rather than get a new version of the page sorted out, then someone does again in 3 months etc. etc.

Glad you could join us. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the source. Not the most accurate articles in the world with regard to firearms, but at least they got 70% of it right. Regards--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm do you think that's what the article meant? the Swedish one, that is. The text was a bit choppy from the translation. If that's what they meant, by all means, change it. Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of large aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerodyne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

RS-26 Rubezh

added a link pointing to Mach

Sarmat

added a link pointing to Mach

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt was reverted. In the meantime, please discuss the title in the article talk page. --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palais Rohan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thank you, answered at the the category's entry. MaeseLeon (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaeseLeon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ist the production of gold in cChina important enough for the lead, in my few only if China would provide the largest share like 70% or more. --Stone (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, @Stone: - I'd say it's notable enough. No country nowadays is going to do what South Africa did in the 70's, but the Chinese are mining a huge amount of it, almost as much as the 2 next countries combined and increasingly rising. I thought it was interesting enough for the casual reader to have at least a short line in lead. Greetings! --MaeseLeon (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Papyrus 115 as the "the earliest known" (biblical manuscript) is true, but not useful, as it's considerably after the date the Book of Revelation is believed to have been written (AD 85–96). If it were closer in time, you might have a point, but [[Papyrus 115|the earliest one]] still violates the principle of least surprise.

Having a more elaborate sentence on 616 in the lead of 666 than in the body is clearly excessive.

Please discuss somewhere before restoring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Arthur Rubin:. I'm not really so interested in the subject ---I'm not even a believer, myself. However, since the number 666 is basically only known because of its relationship with Revelation, and possibly the primary reason why people searches it in Wikipedia (my guess), I thought it was interesting to mention in the lead that they're most possibly misled. Furthermore, it's not only Papyrus 115, it's almost every early source. I restored it because I still thought it would be interesting for most readers of the article, but I'm not going to enter a discussion about it ---it's not so relevant to me. :) I don't even trust that the New Testament was significantly written before the 2nd century, there is zero hard evidence about it. I still think the 616 thing should be mentioned somehow, but do as you wish. Best regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaeseLeon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xenon trioxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best to user review articles rather than primary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiesta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military of Abkhazia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhuk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ship camouflage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dungaree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 in spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASAT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Naval mine into Torpedo. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find time for it please take a look at the article about Imelda Marcos. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaeseLeon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Durango, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cedar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Voter registration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absentee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soviet space program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of industrial disasters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sewer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Extinct Native American tribes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at G. K. Chesterton, 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. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morocco–Spain relations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catalan, Basque and Galician (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia‎, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia‎. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse Eye's Back: Disruptive editing? The only one doing disruptive editing and violating Wikipedia rules here is you, for instance deleting a POV discussion request in People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia without allowing proper consideration of the very serious problems in this article, or engaging in mass deletion in 1987 Lieyu massacre, among others, following an obvious political pattern. Page protection has been requested and your actions have been reported. --MaeseLeon (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced text such as "according to pro-Western media and think tanks, without providing evidence” to People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia‎[1][2]. Page protection? What for? Also please review WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaeseLeon, please, can you translate this page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrio_de_San_Francisco_(Inca) to english wiki?. THANKS!!!!!! happy new year!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnobis2013 (talk • contribs)--Nonnobis2013 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (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 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Normandale Park shooting 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/Normandale Park shooting 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.

Patapsco913 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaeseLeon. I just wanted to inform you that your vote in the Requested Move discussion at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident is in the wrong section. I recommend that you move it to the 'Discussion after debris were found' section and amend it, if needed. Ping me if you have any questions. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, discussion was closed while I was posting this. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 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 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Novaya Gazeta a far-right source? Just don't cry when people rightfully expose the far-left's love for Putin. 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:9061:C991:6FA1:F594 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That anonymous IP has been Blocked for personal attacks and lies (WP:PA, WP:HARASS, WP:BNBR) and later for WP:THREAT. Preserved for future reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaeseLeon (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 València residential complex fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Razón.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 2024 Valencia residential complex fire a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2024 València residential complex fire. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. DankJae 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. TylerBurden (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So on top of the above issues with references, you are now accusing people of being vandals for reverting your edits. TylerBurden (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden What "attack" and "issues with references" are you talking about? That user is vandalizing and removing correct, fully sourced, relevant information provided by NATO's Supreme Commander. Well, obviously this needs to be taken to other instances.

MaeseLeon (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had stated the reasons for it to be removed. It was WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE and WP:QUOTEFARM commentary and observation on the state of the war that had no effect on the outcome of the conflict itself and a non-event. If the general had stated that the loss of 10% of the Russian air force’s fleet occurred on April 10, that would have been a notable entry for that date and for the timeline itself. Unfortunately the Russians didn’t revive like some amputated hydra overnight. That you chose to make bad faith assumptions and make wild accusations rather than ask yourself why is further justification for your edit to be removed. If it’s any consolation to you, you’re not the first editor to have inserted undue commentary that was reverted. Borgenland (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content to the article about the October 2024 Spain floods pertaining the alleged worsening of effects in the right bank of the Turia due to the new river bed. Cited sources do not directly back up that analysis. They mention a funnel effect, but not the Turia river bed as a factor enhacing the funnel effect. It is expected from you to provide sources directly backing up the content. That is not the case so far.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]