User talk:Huangdi

Hello Huangdi, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 06:05, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Re: A few minutes please

since your first comment was under a different name on the talk page I thought you were two different people and you just saw the discussion and decided to add it. plus I always add the source at the same time I write the passage I am taking from it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I just mentioned, on your page, I reverted and saved first. Then I added the new cite and, at the same time, a more fleshed out statement from the defense attorney. And I did note beforehand on the talk page that such a cite existed. In fact I noticed my "new" cite has been among the external links for a long time. Huangdi 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Peyroux

Your edits (of which the only edit summary was: "no promoting commercial/other interests") needed considerably more explanation. It's not at all clear what commercial interests you think were being promoted in the large chunks of text that you removed. Also, youe claim that Got You on My Mind "has not seen wide release" needs a source; it's certainly widely available here, including being sold in HMV, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit says "commercial release". The record company the musician apparently sued 1) had a contract with Peyroux not to release it and 2) was dismissed from the case. Perhaps a better word can be used. HMV - is that mainly in Britain? Anyways, I made a number of other edits unrelated to the circumstances around this third album/EP, which I hope will not be deleted again. Huangdi 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMV is a major international record company and retailer, based in the U.K. I've now expanded the article, and rewritten parts of what was already there.

Liliuokalani

The quote you grabbed from pbs.org regarding the queen's experience governing during 1881 seems like it should be quoted, rather than slightly paraphrased. Although I also have some problems with some of the citations in that pbs.org blurb - the U.S. peacekeepers did not take up hostile positions towards the palace, she did not surrender at gunpoint, and the McKinley Act was in 1890, not two months after her ascension to the throne as stated. It seems like the program being cited wasn't well researched, and was primarily a propoganda vehicle for sovereignty activists working through Vivian Ducat...see http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles2/HawnFlagCutUpSouv1898.html for some information regarding other false claims made in that program. We should probably find original sources to reference, rather than getting information 3rd hand.

Also, on the other edits I've reverted, I'm more than happy to work together on making the language acceptable to all sides, but let's work together on it, instead of just competing with edits. I'm sure that together we can help make all of these articles better! --JereKrischel 05:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo for your concern regarding POV on the liliuokalani page. I think we can successfully work together to put proper citations and bring balance to the article, but I think we'll need to do so one small concern at a time. Would you like to start raising specific concerns on the liliuokalani talk page so we can work on this? Thanks! --JereKrischel 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. I will edit no more than one paragraph at a time. I was simply surprised and dismayed to find that most of my changes from a few months ago had been wiped out without much comment. I put a note on the talk page as well. Huangdi 02:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I could make a suggestion for both of us to follow, it would be helpful if instead of paraphrasing something, we simply make quotes with citations. So, for example, instead of making a claim directly (the overthrow was illegal), we can say "person x said the overthrow was illegal" and use a "ref" tag to cite them. Of course, we'll have disagreements as to what is a reliable source and what isn't, but I think we can work those out faster if we get to them directly. I'll try going through and making clear citations as well. --JereKrischel 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rosewall article

I have never seen before a relatively complete article about Rosewall's tennis feats and in particular concerning his pro career before the open era in 1968 so when I've seen the embryo of article written in Wikipedia last September, I've decided to entirely rewrite it. So for once there is a valuable (in my mind) article about Rosewall. Consequently I'm not eager to make some clean-up. Nevertheless if this article require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards it has to be changed. But perhaps those modifications will be done by others than me because I haven't the courage to do it. What do you precisely suggest ?

Carlo Colussi 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cmt on CFD

Huangdi, your comment on the PETA supporters CFD left me a little confused -- are you saying that Animal rights activists should be kept? Either way, you might want to doublecheck your comment -- there are two verbs in the last sentence that leave it a little confusing. --lquilter 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm saying that the category Animal rights activist should be kept. I've amended my comment to indicate that. Huangdi 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Stallion

Thanks for being my spellchecker :) --Edokter (Talk) 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blount Report

Huangdi, thanks for the supportive comments. I certainly agree with you that getting a critical mass of editors interesting in working on Hawaii-related articles is important -- as probably needs no further elaboration, there has been a certain POV pushed by a singularly tenacious editor, and so more minds focused on the material would no doubt help improve the accuracy and fairness therein. Unfortunately, I've got something fairly major on for the next couple of weeks, so won't be able to do a thing until mid-April, but would appreciate been (loosely) in touch as things progress. In the meantime, good luck and aloha. Arjuna 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huangdi, I could use your and others' assistance in attempts by a certain editor to protect the existing POV tone of several Hawaii articles. I merely inserted a POV tag to reflect the current sad state of the articles, but even this minimal step to flag the material as NPOV to outside readers is challenged. It seems that there are basically two people -- including myself (on the moderate side as I am no radical) -- interested in improving the article, and as others have already noted, the other editor's political ideology seems all-too-evident in the tone of the articles. In any event, your help in monitoring -- not getting into further edit wars, which frankly I don't have time for at the moment, or at all actually -- would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. Cheers and aloha. Arjuna 09:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Aloha Huangdi. Thanks for your comments, and although I realize there's quite a bit to wade through to get up to speed on the latest, your help would be much appreciated! I'm taking the overthrow article as the main front to get things back to a fair and accurate representation. Cheers, Arjuna 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overthrow article (again)

Hi Huangdi, I noticed (and agreed with) your recent edits on the Blount and Morgan Report articles. As you may or not be aware, we have another (new?) "difficult" editor, Yosemitesam25, bent on pushing a very Grassroots Insitute-like POV on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article. I and certain other editors feel it may either be an old friend or a new one, but suspicious of his/her possible COI issues. See User_talk:Yosemitesam25 for details. Certainly their edits have been highly tendentious, and your help and input would be very welcome. You may wish to refer to the back and forth discussion on the article's talk page. Given where things are (YS seems unamenable to logic if you ask me) it would have more weight if further reverts to his reverts had the consensus of other editors, so again, your help would be appreciated. Cheers and mahalo, Arjuna (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceuta

Hi Huangdi; When I made my reverse I forgot to put a "?" behind "Vandalism". Sorry. Hope you agree with my "POV" remark. --Floridianed (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Crossing Over (film)

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Crossing Over (film), as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Andjam (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the response on your talk page. Huangdi (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. Dale Cook

H. Dale Cook is of marginal notability and I'm not sure he meets either the general notability guidelines, guidelines for people, or the guidelines for academics. Being appointed to the federal bench is not in and of itself notable. Other than his obituary and pro-forma articles where he is only mentioned because he happens to be the judge on a particular court case, has he gotten much press coverage? Did he oversee any particularly notable cases, publish any particularly notable opinions, or write any notable books? Was he generally considered notable among his peers? If any of these are true, please expand the article. If not, please consider having the article deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosley Crowther

FYI, I just re-examined this artilcle after a long absence. I see that a few weeks ago you attempted to fix the article's problematic content (accusing Crowther of pro-left leanings). This was reverted. I've asked the Biography noticeboard for assistance. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. This is meant to be advice, not a criticism. SMP0328. (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

portmanteau

That term is a perfect description of how user+network gives usenet and how simultaneous+broadcast gives simulcast. I'm not sure why you removed that term (in some cases putting in an incorrect word, in other cases leaving no word and thus an incomplete sentence). I have undone your changes of this type. Please don't continue with this pattern of edits without a good explanation. Thanks. DMacks (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily show the origin of the word, where one is needed, without actually using 'portmanteau' to describe it. Have you ever considered how many times 'portmanteau' would be, and indeed, has been overused (and mis-used) here? Huangdi (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potter's House

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Potter's House Christian Fellowship do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Forum's cannot be used as external links or sources anyway. The other link http://pottershousefreedom.org/ would by category come under the external links critics section anyway. There is no reason why that cannot be added, the reason I have not included it was to prevent an edit war with an anon editor that I know of that does not approve of that particular site. Darrenss (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced addition at Julia Moon

Hey, please do not add unsourced info to articles, especially not to WP:BLPs, as you did at the article Julia Moon. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Dennis v. United States. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Eugene Dennis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there is unsourced, or any less supported than the text already there. Please take a look at Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio before firing off your chilling speech... Huangdi (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Please do not violate site policy again. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer going to respond to someone who edits his talk page to his own version of reality. Huangdi (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Huangdi! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Norman D. Shumway - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Georgina Grenville - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush early career section

I noticed you recently edited the George W. Bush article, changing the section named Early Career to Professional Career, and also adding subheadings with date ranges. The first date range you entered (1974-1978) is blank. Did you intend to come back to add something to this? Otherwise there's no reason to break up the section by date. LarryJeff (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone else already fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryJeff (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fanzine

I've reverted your inexplicable rewording of the definition and origin of the term. Portmanteau is a perfectly good word that applies directly there. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the use, or rather prevalence, of 'portmanteau' that I find inexplicable. There's no good reason why it can't be replaced by some other word, perhaps one that actually fits into the background of the article. Huangdi (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi

I have reverted certain changes you made to the following page: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi

Further Information: Megrahi was expected to live for less than three months at the time of his release and the references provided support this.

--tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. It's the rest of the material that seemed superfluous. Huangdi (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cite to Google News

Hi. Thanks for introducing citations to news stories into articles. But please note that you shouldn't introduce cites to Google News into articles as you did here.

Links to Google News break very quickly since only the last 30 days of stories are retained on its site. ( I only learned of this recently myself, btw, when I saw mention of the problem in Template:Cite_news#Optional_parameters. ) Would you please revisit your edits on the article(s) (and anywhere else you might have cited Google News), find direct links to the underlying news article, and substitute the direct link(s) for the links to Google News? I, or other editors, might have already addressed one or more such instances, but it's a time-consuming process, and your review and assistance would be very greatly appreciated.

For content that's available from its original online publisher, it's probably best to find that, and link to it directly, if possible, but you can link to Google News Archive (external link here) for content that's not available online in its original context. Links to to Google News Archive are much more permanent, as I infer. But if you do so, please be careful to do two things:

Please be sure you're using the cite news template for your cite, as you should to cite all news stories. The cite web template should never be used to cite news stories, and a bare http ref doesn't provide fields for metadata that needs to be included.
Please be sure to place the link to the google-archived story in the optional "archive url" field of the "cite news" template, not in the plain "url" template field. If no direct link to the original publisher's site for the content can be found, the plain "url" field should be left blank in this case. Do not put the archived document's link in the plain "url" field. Failing to follow these caveats will cause links to appear in the references section that give our readers a mistaken impression as to the sourcing for the citation.

Most of the preceding is "boilerplate" text, btw, so it's possible that not all of it will apply to your edit(s). Sorry if that's the case, but the use of cites to Google News is such an extensive problem on Wikipedia, and I come across it so often, that it's just too inefficient to write a completely custom message to relay the same facts over and over. Thanks again for adding cites, and best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move notice for "An Shi Rebellion"

An Shi Rebellion → ? —(Discuss)— As you have shown interest in the naming of this subject, I have taken the step to inform you of a move request —65.93.13.227 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffanie DeBartolo

Thats a much kinder, NPOV mention of her film, and i hadnt caught it as anistons debut. thanks.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Sullenberger

Hi. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did with your edit to Chesley Sullenberger, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of No Original Research and Verifiability. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information I added was referenced in the previous citation. If you had done some unoriginal research you would have realized this. Bye. Huangdi (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Rutledge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedition Act (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) 11:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of United States Presidents

Hi, I reverted your recent edits at List of nicknames of United States Presidents. Discussions don't belong in the middle of an article, they belong on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

These are needed per WP:V. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Blanche Lincoln. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information you claim is "unreferenced" or "poorly sourced" is actually JUST A FEW INCHES BELOW in the ELECTION RESULTS section for Blanche Lincoln. If you continue to make false charges and further harass me, I will report you to the appropriate editors, like other people have done with you. Huangdi (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN. It is the burden of the editor to provide reliable sources, to verify the content in question. Content was re-added without said reliable sources. Therefore removal of unverified content is justified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are cited in ELECTORAL HISTORY section, and also listed at the bottom of the page already. If you were paying attention, I added inline cites yesterday. I also noticed you have been stalking me since at least September, so I may confer with the appropriate administrators about that matter as well. Huangdi (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar

Just saw your talkpage message here. I just couldn't help but smile at your succinct response; as a lover of history, it's always a pleasure to see negationists proven wrong. Anyway, I'm just dropping by to thank you for your historical input and help in fighting historical negationism. A bit late, I know, but better late than never, right? Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister 03:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm a semi-regular on here but it often disturbs me how some people try to impose their personal "vision" of American history over the real thing. Huangdi (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fringe. 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) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2009 attack on the Dutch Royal Family page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to What the Bleep Do We Know!? may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

misrepresenting [[science]] and containing [[pseudoscience]] and has been described as a case of [[quantum mysticism]; at the same time, many of its interviewees and subjects are professional

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wegelin & Co., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspiracy. 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) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Anti-clericalism page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 22 November 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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1000, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Córdoba and Patan. 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) 10:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Committee for the Defence of Democracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic. 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) 10:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlos Pascual (diplomat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multinational. 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) 10:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

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.

Arm's length principle

added a link pointing to Equitable

Operation Car Wash

added a link pointing to Brazilian Labour Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Taft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bonds. 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) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Savings and loan crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspiracy. 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) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Milliken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Peters. 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) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Huangdi. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Acupuncture. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexbrn, the reality is quite different. I have been the subject of others who are undoing my contributions. I have not been undoing or reverting anyone else's particular contributions. I see that my edits may seem a bit dramatic, so I have conceded to the reverter. If you were paying attention, you might see I have made a new and completely different edit with respect to the paragraph organization, which preserves all the original language that seems important to you and the other contributor. The status quo of any page is not privileged - if you have specific issues with my current edit, please explain here or in the talk page discussion which I began earlier. Thanks. Huangdi (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If you were paying attention"? This notice is just so you're aware of WP:EW. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I look forward to your posting on Tgeorgescu's talk page. Huangdi (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tgeorgescu has made effectively just one edit recently, and is also obviously aware of policy so WP:DNTTR. 13:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Scorpion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspiracy. 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) 09:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Healy family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African. 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) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Huangdi. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Huangdi. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Huangdi. 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]

Edit

This edit a) violated the PSCI policy and b) ignored WP:RELTIME (articles have no dateline, and we don't use words like "today" or "now" or "currently" as they have no time reference). The edit was both tendentious and incompetent. If you keep making edits like that you will very likely be topic banned from alt med topics. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then help Wikipedia find a word, a time period, that brings the statement to adequacy. The introduction as it stands is both tendentious and well below the competency of the average main article in Wikipedia. The unqualified declaration "herbalism is pseudoscience" is inherently ahistorical and reeks of false neutrality, when it was essentially the precursor to botany and the discovery of half of actual modern medicines. It also seems incongruous when (already) amended with the more nuanced statement that it does not "strictly" comply with the scientific method. And what a rude person you are. If you edit like the way you comment, you'd be flagged constantly.Huangdi (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recognizing that you overreached a bit, at least on my personal page. I just googled you and learned a bit about your history. But I keep an open mind on both subjects and personalities on Wikipedia, as I hope you will.Huangdi (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Pierre Messmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Congo and Katanga

Siege of Jadotville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to French

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Habib el-Adly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

中国和国外人互相交流的平台

有没有谁推荐一个与国外人沟通交流的平台啊，让我们的视野走出中国。梁志军 14:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liangzhijun1991 (talk • contribs)

William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley

This article doesn't tie cites to material very well, but re your recent edit:

Derek Wilson (2013) says, "Few politicians were more subtle or unscrupulous than William Cecil." (article's lead)

It links to the 1911 Britannica article which says "His public conduct does not present itself in quite so amiable a light. As the marquess of Winchester said of himself, he was sprung from the willow rather than the oak, and he was not the man to suffer for convictions. The interest of the state was the supreme consideration, and to it he had no hesitation in sacrificing individual consciences", in a paragraph expressly comparing this with his "singularly virtuous" private life. Hence I'm not sure the "Why?" you have added is justified. Perhaps I misunderstand your objection. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I think a different word is more appropriate. Cecil was clear & consistent in supporting and strengthening the state - in his position, there's nothing to be ashamed at for doing that. The word makes it seem like he was corrupt. I realize the original editor is using a (considerably) narrower definition, that he did not "play fair" with his opponents but that usage is new to me (as a North American, or born in the late 20th century, I'm not sure) and much more than that connotation is unfairly suggested by the phrasing. Huangdi (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should be having this discussion at the article's talk page; feel free to move it if you agree.

I see what you mean; I do not think "unscrupulous" implies corruption there, except inasmuch as someone unscrupulous in the service of the state might not shy from private corruption, but of course if the word will often confuse readers it should be changed. (FWIW I was born in the late 20th century, but am British.) I don't think it helps that this part of the article leans so heavily on the now antiquated language of the 1911 Britannica.

The whole thing is a bit about-face in that the contrast made at the start of "Private life" to his public behaviour appears before the following section "Public conduct", so we haven't been told about the ruthlessness yet. Given that "Public conduct" also makes the comparison, I suggest the most straightforward approach would be to remove "In contrast to his public unscrupulousness[why?]" altogether. What do you think? Pinkbeast (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The material you added needs a citation

Hi Huangdi, the material you added to Chris Cuomo ([1]) needs a citation. Without a citation, it will be deleted, probably sooner rather than later, because uncited it's just hearsay on a WP:BLP. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the source was cited in the previous sentence. I added it again anyway. Huangdi (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

non-binding resolutions

Hi. I disagree with your decision to remove relevant information from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article. You may be aware that all GA resolutions are non-binding but I suspect that the vast majority of readers are not aware of this fact. For this reason, the addition of the information helps the reader understand the full significance of the GA resolution. Removing this information, as you have done, serves no other purpose than making it more likely that readers will come to wrong conclusions about the significance of a GA resolution. I trust you will reconsider your edit. Birtig (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Huangdi. 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 2019 election voter message

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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hunger (2001 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trevor Morris (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) 10:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David O. Sacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Koch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rowe and WP:POV?

Hey there, I am trying to clean-up the Mike Rowe article and wanted to understand the WP:POV tag that you placed? (I am drifting through "Narrators"). I didn't find the standard Weasel words, etc. that I am used to. Was there some specific section that you thought warranted a look? Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2023 World Athletics Relays

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.

A tag has been placed on 2023 World Athletics Relays requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/competition-updates-225th-world-athletics-council-meeting. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 30 September 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pohlad

I don't suppose you remember where you got this information 17 years ago, do you? DS (talk) 19:35, 27 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]