User talk:Darker Dreams

User Talk Subpages My personal library Editor's Index

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk

Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

Current year

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 17:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Dragon Skin body armor

Hello and thank you for contacting me. Unfortunately, I usually don't get involved in disputes regarding articles where I lack expertise. My suggestion is create a section on the article's talk page about the disputed edits or disruptive behavior by other users. If they refuse to talk about it then it's legitimate to warn them (use the "Not adhering to NPOV" templates that you will find here) and have them blocked if they still persist in making unilateral, disputed changes without discussing them. Just warn and revert, and report if they keep inserting their changes after receiving a set of warnings. I hope this helps. Regards,--Hús ö nd 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please brief me on the user and with what sort of edits is he disrupting the article? I'll have a closer look.--Hús ö nd 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't find enough proof that a particular user is disrupting the article with POV. I've protected the article due to edit war anyway. It would be convenient if some editors agree on the talk page that a specific user is being disruptive. That would certainly help counter disruption after the article is unprotected.--Hús ö nd 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wassail (World of Darkness)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wassail (World of Darkness), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wassail (World of Darkness). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Craw-daddy | T | 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PlaneShift (video game)

Why the hell do I have my own personal attack section on that talk page? Oh well, I have removed it. Everything you said EvanCarroll did first (pay attention to where the URL goes) and he has voice on the #peragro channel on Freenode. I would be inclined to believe the other way around. And no I do not have a conflict of interest. I just play the game, and I asked on irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia back in June if playing a game implies that you have a conflict of interest, and the consensus was that I do not. Tuxide (talk) of WikiProject Retailing 07:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Storm

After briefly spot checking your contributions, I "repaired" your re-directs away from Metal Storm, assuming you meant the video game. WurmWoode^T 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MetalStorm and Metal Storm

Fair use rationale for File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 on 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. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Sign of the Gateway.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sign of the Gateway.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Deconstructed sign of the gateway.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Deconstructed sign of the gateway.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Sign

Because you don't add citation, you just add external link. L-Zwei (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just make proper citation instead of simply lazily linking outside. Don't you see those Notes and References section? L-Zwei (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm lazy-ass who aren't very friendly. But consider that one who add it made half-ass edit by simply link outside (which may even violate WP:SPAM) instead of made proper citation, I don't see why I should put any more effort. Look, if you want to re-add it then made proper citation, else just leave it. Whatever, I won't do it to you. L-Zwei (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kansas City

I would suggest putting it up on the talk page. Give it a week or so. If there isn't any discussion, then just do it. You could also propose a move here. I fixed 800 disambiguation links to the page so this is a pretty major change. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment made me laugh hard. Hey. At least you know. :-D In the end, I don't have any problem with the change really. I just get concerned when massive changes like that are made without direct discussion. The old page was a bit troublesome as it was a semi-disam page. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Johnny Dare Morning Show

The article The Johnny Dare Morning Show has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable radio show. References are all primary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under 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 on 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darker Dreams. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Darker Dreams. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clan (World of Darkness) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clan (World of Darkness) 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/Gargoyles (World of Darkness) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kracht Castle Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Junction City (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) 11:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Watson Answering.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Watson Answering.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sign of Koth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sign of Koth 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/Sign of Koth until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Places of power and Energy (esotericism) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED Darker Dreams (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:I am not an admin for pete's sake Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've dropped two "admin action" warnings on my talk page in very short succession. I suppose a better comment would be "pot:kettle=black," or just "that's a bit of an odd call given you've got more reverts on Energy (esotericism) than I do, and as many today" but... I assumed you'd get the point. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of WP:CLUE is becoming more and more apparent. Anyone can give anyone these notifications Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't believe you are creating all this drama to try to force websites like "whitemagicway.com" and "sacredspaces.com" into WP. Mind blowing Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IUC WP:AGF I don't care about those sources. I care that you're so focused on those sources that you can't figure out how to just WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you have been edit warring in two different articles to retain. The problem that needs fixing is your bad choice of refs - this is what both nikkimaria and i have been telling you, and you are not hearing it. I won't respond again here. If you want to discuss something at an article talk page, that would be that. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was pushing back in place of power to retain the wiki references to things like Charmed which I haven't had a chance to dig out the relevant episode or how to format the citation. Actually, I didn't even look at which citations got scooped up in someone else's edit [1], who was hammering away at source quality, and you promptly reverted out of hand. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Place of power shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Earth mysteries

I've started a new discussion at Talk:Earth mysteries#Relevancy of deleted Place of power article about whether we have the best title (and content) for the topic. I figured you might be interested in working on the other article. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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]

Category:Cthulhu Mythos symbols has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cthulhu Mythos symbols, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sock pupet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sock pupet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Sock pupet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sacred site, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sacred Ground. 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) 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm Gwennie-nyan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Modern Pagan views on LGBT people, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred time moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sacred time, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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. John B123 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred time moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sacred time, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Your edit to Sacred has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 27 July 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sacred time

Hello, Darker Dreams. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sacred time, 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) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cochranites

Hi Darker Dreams, according to MOS:DABBLUE, disambiguation page entries should have one blue link to the most relevant article. That is how I edited Cochranites. I moved Cochranianism to the See also section because that is where similar titles are typically listed (MOS:DABSEEALSO). Leschnei (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved all of the bluelinks to entry starts to standardize them, removed the extra blue link without pushing the main link into a redirect, and restored your fix to a mainpage link caught up the previous redirect. My reading of MOS:DABSEEALSO looks like all three entries would technically fall under the See Also criteria. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - thanks! Leschnei (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern paganism

take the dispute to Talk please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Modern paganism#RfC. Thank you.

The thread at WP:NPOVN is a notification to the RfC at Talk:Modern paganism#RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:44, 27 November 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology Sun Dates

I have added cited data for the start dates of signs Aries and Taurus for the years 2000 to 2029. You will notice that they change. The full current dates for this year are 2023 Mar 20 21:24 Aries and 2023 Apr 20 08:14 Taurus. Next year's dates are 2024 Mar 20 03:06 Aries 2024 Apr 19 14:00 Taurus. Notice that these dates differ from your last edit. But of course these are Universal Time dates. Depending on your location the local times may be up to 13 hour later or 12 hours earlier. However the table says "Approximate dates" so it doesn't matter that you put in incorrect data. Anyone who actually wants to use this table would always use an ephemeris. Only an idiot would use a fixed table for data that is inherently changeable.

I will leave to your conscience whether you want to leave incorrect figures in a table that you edited. OrewaTel (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Sacredness. 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. DanCherek (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Worship, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Devotion and Hero worship.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Witchcraft (disambiguation)

Your recent editing history at Witchcraft (disambiguation) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listing move discussion at Wikiprojects

Hi, do you know if RMs should be listed at wikiprojects, or how to do that, or if a bot handles this? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Witchcraft (diabolic)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Witchcraft (diabolic). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Witchcraft. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Witchcraft. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Witchcraft (traditional) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Witchcraft (traditional) 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/Witchcraft (traditional) 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.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a home for your content

Hi, I think you're going about this all wrong (i.e. lots of new pages), but your intentions and your content are good. I've actually just taken all of the material that you placed at Witchcraft (traditional) and split it between Cunning folk, which is where the discussion of European folk healers/mystic individuals belongs, and Witch (word), which is where the evolution of the label of "witch" is best explained. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darker Dreams, we also don't need this: Template:Witchcraft sidebar. As I said on that talk page, you've lumped together cunning people and traditional knowledge with witches, who those societies define as those who harm their own communities. It duplicates templates we already have. 00:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You are edit-warring

I realize you are very attached to the Neopagan redefinition of "witch" as someone who heals, and the debunked witch-cult theory. You claim you are not here to right great wrongs but your edit history shows otherwise:

Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know this is hard for you to hear, as you have cast me as an enemy, but I know many people who believe as you do. I have a great deal of compassion for this view. BUT, I am asking you to have compassion for the Indigenous, African, Irish and Scottish cultures for whose traditional people "witch" and "witchcraft" is the opposite of the healers and healing metaphysical work. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with these communities, but they/we don't usually trust people who call themselves witches, both because of the "harming their own communities" meaning, but also because American and UK Neopagans are known to culturally appropriate from these very cultures. It's an issue that is very much under the banner of "contemporary witchcraft" and is a huge reason why "contemporary witchcraft" is not synonymous with "neopagan witchcraft". Please, try to understand this as a global, and not just white people, issue. I have raised this multiple times now and you, and a few other editors, are blatantly ignoring it. This, to me, is the major systemic bias issue. Which is why I re-added the systemic bias flag, which you reverted, along with returning a wholly inappropriate link to Indigenous traditional knowledge which is not "witchcraft.[2] Why did you remove it? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is hard for you to hear, as you have cast me as an enemy - including repeatedly accusing me of bad faith in various styles and forums; I have provided, repeatedly, sources that demonstrate that "witch" has been applied to a number of categories of individuals. There is significant complexity to this issue because of several redefinitions of the term "witch," including being applied by colonialists and anthropologists based on specific white, anglo-European, colonial, Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment frameworks that sought to map a broad range of experiences and belief systems into their contemporary European experience - even when that was glaringly inappropriate.

Now, we are not supposed to be discussing these issues outside the mediation process at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Witchcraft. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pinging you here to discuss article content. This is behavioural. You are edit-warring with multiple people, as is evident in your contribs. I'll add diffs, but I think you are aware of what you are doing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Witchcraft sidebar

Template:Witchcraft sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Witchcraft (traditional). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling edits made in good faith, "vandalism" is a personal attack. You've now done this twice, to two different editors, simply because you disagree with the content. [3][4]

Your edits include the blanking of sources and return of off-topic links, and you are once again edit-warring - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring again / Tendentious editing

Waiting a bit and then hitting "undo" again is just continuing the edit war you have been warned about above, along with misleading and incivil edit summaries and blanking of sourced content that you simply don't like.[5] This is disruptive and WP:TENDENTIOUS. As has been explained, you are inserting misleading links. You don't have consensus to use Indigenous definitions for witchcraft as "traditional knowledge." We have consensus, that you have agreed to, that Indigenous cultures do not agree with your redefinition of "witchcraft" as positive magic. Stop edit warring. Your accusing others of WP:OWNy behaviour is projection. It's what you are doing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Witchcraft (traditional). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Witchcraft (traditional) for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darker Dreams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I created this page and, following its WP:AFD nomination User:CorbieVreccan immediately blanked it[6], has repeatedly made false claims regarding sources in edit statements[7][8][9][10], and elsewhere, sought to redefine the article to match definitions already covered at other pages[11], and done this all in coordination with at least one other user[12] who they have defended as "normal editing" even when the stated purpose of edits was to "undermine the whole premise of this article"[13].

I agree there is a PoV push, tendacious editing, and attempts at ownership in the entire cluster of Witchcraft articles; but it's the doing of a rogue admin who repeatedly claims consensus when no such thing is present[14][15], believes they (and those they agree with) are above the rules they wish to apply to others, and shows a willingness to weaponize systems against other editors to intimidate them.[16] - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Jpgordon: please clarify which portion of this is considered a personal attack? I do not believe that I said anything substantially different than was said about me in the request resulting in my block.[17] - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darker Dreams. To answer the question: rogue admin, believes they... are above the rules, and willingness to weaponize systems against other editors to intimidate them are all statements that seem to fall into the sphere of "personal attacks".

In general, admins won't consider unblock requests where the blocked user talks about another editor's objectionable conduct. No matter how defensible your own actions might feel, people will expect you to commit to not undertaking similar actions in the future.

I'm here because I saw your request at WP:RFAR. Wikipedia will never have balanced articles on witchcraft and magic and related topics. It is built on and bound to a completely different way of knowing, one which has historically deliberately marginalised and vilified women's natural knowledge traditions. I know a lot of witches. This just isn't the right website for this. Sorry to have to frame this with such finality, but I thought it might be kinder if you heard it from someone who understands both sides. Folly Mox (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European witchcraft

Expanded and with a new lead. Cast an eye and make improvements where you see problems. Skyerise (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure exactly where your interests lie, but another new stub is Witchcraft in the Middle East. Skyerise (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft and related topics declined

Hello, the request for arbitration, Witchcraft and related topics, has been declined the Arbitration Committee. They had concluded that arbitration is not appropriate at this stage.
For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Witchcraft sidebar#How to group neopagan witchcraft and feminist witchcraft

Hope that we can discuss this over a few days, and maybe involve some more editors, such as by seeking a third opinion. Please be mindful of 3RR. Best —Alalch E. 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Witchcraft

Hi, Darker Dreams. Did this recent edit do what you thought it would? It just adds a trailing space to a paragraph (+1), not "Undoing revert; restored sourced material." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in DoggoLingo, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MOS:OVERLINK says not to bother linking "everyday words understood by most readers in context". Nobody reading this article will need to open a tab to find out what a bird is. Belbury (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comments

Hi! Could you please sign your comment [18] in the ‎Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17#Lək̓ʷəŋən RFD discussion for clarity? Let me know if you have any questions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

magico-religious

I noticed you linking the term magico-religious in many articles. What is your intention there? Are you intending on making an article on the phrase? I just redirected it to Magic and religion but if you have an article you want to make then go ahead with it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to point to a discussion already underway at Talk:Bandlet_of_Righteousness#Magico-religious. Short version; I don't know. It's just getting used a lot (that redirect receives links from 85 main space articles), in some places like it's supposed to carry significant meaning, and isn't defined or explained... - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft as shamanism

As I'm sure you know, there are many sources which equate witchcraft in Europe with shamanism throughout the rest of the world. When shamanism is suppressed, it is nearly always called "witchcraft" in the process. Many of the "examples" of the suppression of witchcraft as malevolent originally in the Asia section were about one or another form of shamanism, but the editor who added the material simply cherry-picked the opposition without providing any background about the tradition being suppressed. I've compiled a fairly large list of sources that support this view here. It is neither a minority, fringe, or "neopagan" view. In fact, if it is not now the majority view, it is certainly the second of the prevailing theories. Skyerise (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD Schwarzes Meer

Hi Darker Dreams!

In the discussion at the RfD linked above (now closed as "keep"), you suggested to add link to relevant map(s) in redirect talk page to provide future context. What exactly did you have in mind? As mentioned at the RfD, there are lots of maps that may be relevant. I gave links to about a dozen there (with potential to expand that list to 100+). Do you find it necessary to link them all? Maybe it is best to just point to the RfD, and briefly explain the reasons for keeping? Renerpho (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: I'm not suggesting that you (or anyone) needs to go hunt down all the relevant maps, but if you've already got between a dozen and 100+ that's a swath of identification someone else doesn't have to do if they decide to fix it. Identified maps should be getting collected somewhere or it's never going to get on anyone's radar as a real project or just going to be more annoying when it does. Thinking about it, a category may be better because it'd be easier to find/manage than a list on a talk page - then just link from the redirect talk page to the RfD and category. I don't know if this makes sense. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Intermediate state" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Intermediate state has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Intermediate state until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments on WP:RMC

The WP:RMC is maintained by a bot as a list of ongoing discussions. Any inserted comments by editors on there will be removed in the bot's next update(s), as evidently so with your comments being removed. If you have not done so, please open up the individual discussions by clicking on the (Discuss) link in the entries you have comments on and copy your comments over. – robertsky (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

You can't directly edit Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions to post move-related comments there. That page is created on-the-fly by a bot, and changes you make to it will simply be elminated a few minutes later. To comment in an RM discussion, you go to the talk page of the page being proposed for move/rename. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky provided this same notification two sections above. I have made no further edits to the WP:RMC page. I will address relocating those comments if I have time. - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned by the community

Per this ANI discussion, you have been indefinitely topic banned from the subjects of witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly construed. Please consult WP:TBAN to see what a topic ban is. The ban can be appealed to either WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. I recommend you to not apply in less than six months from now, but that is merely a personal recommendation because I think it would improve your chances of a successful appeal; it's not a formal restriction. If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. Bishonen | tålk 22:29, 20 October 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Magico-medical" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Magico-medical has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Magico-medical until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Magico-healing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Magico-healing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Magico-healing until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

I have closed your appeal as unsuccessful. Please take hede of the input from editors. Star Mississippi 02:55, 7 September 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) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]