User talk:Раммон

Welcome

Hello, Раммон, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A page you started (Cundell) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cundell, Раммон!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

wikified page

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Раммон, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Раммон. You have new messages at StudiesWorld's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

StudiesWorld (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what you do there is fix it, not remove it. Read WP:SOFIXIT

I've watched your edit warring up and down several pages, and your accusation of editwarring at ANI. It is you who are at fault. You were told at ANI that what you do there is fix it, not remove it. Read WP:SOFIXIT.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee April 2017

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not show your ignorance, please. Information I had added was based on reliable sources: Виктор Шендерович: "Движемся к 2018 году"(in Russian) and Алексей Рощин: "Никакой возможности для альтернативного расследования в России нет"(in Russian). The first source is copy of blog of well-known Russian journalist Victor Shenderovich on Newsru.com. The second source is copy of blog of social psychologist Alexey Roschin on Newsru.com. So I suppose that the information should be returned to the article. Раммон (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a slander - the authors made assumptions. Раммон (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added is defamatory and has been deleted. Please do not add content that breaches WP:LIBEL. The sources you showed contain assumptions, not facts. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 07:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information is neither defamatory nor libelous - it is only a version. An assumption, that was expressed by two public people and was published in the reliable source - newsru.com. Раммон (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions may be applied to your account

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 Eastern Europe, 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:09, 5 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I suppose that Coffee made mistake when blocked me. He blocked me after I had started new section on article talk page Talk:2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing to discuss reliability of the sources I had used to add information to article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Instead of discussing he blocked me and deleted the section on the article talk page. I suppose that Coffee incorrectly applied rule WP:BLP. Раммон (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were a very serious violation of WP:BLP. IMvHO, you've got off very lightly with a 24hr block. Blogs are never reliable sources, particularly not for information that presents the subject of a BLP in poor light. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2017 (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.

Mjroots, as far as I understood, you suppose that newsru.com is an unreliable source. Then add it to blacklist, please. Раммон (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

news.ru.com is a reliable, if biased, source. However, the source you used started blog.newsru.com, which makes it unreliable. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, here are the same words of the same people - Victor Shenderovich and Alexey Roschin. What will you do - unblock me or add newsru.com to blacklist? Раммон (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and Facebook, both of which fail WP:RS. Subject closed. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Coffee reblocked me for 3 days without any explanation on my user talk page. In description of the block he wrote "User has given no indication that they plan to change their activities once unblocked - preventative measure". It is unclear whom he meant writing about "they" - "they plan", "their activities". This mistake allows me to doubt whether he was sober at the moment of the making this block. Furthermore I did not insisted on using the rejected sources (blog.newsru.com) after I had suggested using another source and Mjroots criticized it. I suppose that Coffee abused his admin authority in this case. Раммон (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The rogue administrator argument will get you nowhere. Please read the guide to appealing blocks. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:06, 6 April 2017 (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.

Ks0stm, this is my case: "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". And Coffee violated rules WP:AGF and WP:DNB by blocking me, that is why my case is also described by the next words "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)" of the WP:GAP. Раммон (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing on en-Wiki since July 2015, so don't claim to be a newbie. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that blocking without a warning is common practice on en-Wiki (I mean my second block for 3 days) because I did not take an interest in blocking policy on en-Wiki. Раммон (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, Mjroots and Ks0stm, I suppose that your interpretation of WP:BLP is far from its interpretation of Jimbo Wales - Jimbo supported existence of the Putin khuilo! article in spite of possible sue's threaten. But you try to prevent existance of criticism of Putin on en-Wiki. Read this article to see sample of truely neutral article. Article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing is violating WP:NPV now because it is containing the only point of view - Putin's one, and the article is not containing any others points of view. In independent Russian media there are a lot of materials critisizing Putin's point of view to the act of terrorism and this criticism must be in the article in accordance with WP:NPV. And your miserable attempts to shield the bloody dictator do not correspond to the purposes of creating Wikipedia. Раммон (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I ever said that I am opposed to negative material about Vladimir Putin (or any other BLP)? What I said was this:- any negative material referring to a BLP needs to be sourced to strong, very reliable sources. Blogs, social media etc do not meet this and cannot be used, ever. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:39, 6 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I suppose that Coffee have made mistake, beleiving that I am here not to build an encyclopedia. I am here to to build an encyclopedia. Раммон (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This was not a mistake, though maybe not the most relevant block reason. If you weren't out to push conspiracy theories, you have shown a severe lack of understanding regarding the kinds of references we need for content about living people, and you have arguably even misrepresented those already deficient sources. Huon (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2017 (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.

Huon, I did not push conspiracy theories but I used reliable source - newsru.com. Also I did not misrepresent sources - it is unfair accusation. Раммон (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You used commentary, which is not a reliable source for anything beyond the commentators' opinions, to support a claim the commentators didn't make. Huon (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added text in that commentaries were not presented as facts but as commentators' opinions. And I did not distort sense of commentators' words. Раммон (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee and Huon, FYI: the article on Ukrainian Wikipedia contains version of the involvement of Russian authorities to the bombing cited this source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zefAG9YlrgI. Раммон (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the Ukrainian Wikipedia's standards, but the English Wikipedia does not consider YouTube a reliable source. Huon (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the English Wikipedia does not consider YouTube a reliable source? Раммон (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway indefenite block for mistake in reliability of a source it seems a bit steep. Раммон (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I realized my error: I violated WP:BLPGOSSIP. I promise not to do it and I ask to unblock me. Раммон (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

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).

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

Request reason:

I realized my error: I violated WP:BLPGOSSIP. I promise not to do it and I ask to unblock me.

Decline reason:

This was far from your only problem. It would clearly be actively harmful to the Wikipedia project to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2018 (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.

Yamla, could you please explain which problems prevent you from unlocking me? Раммон (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I even start? You seem to misunderstand WP:RS. You've added defamatory content. You've attacked other editors. You've engaged in and propagated conspiracy theories. And you don't seem to see the problem with all of that. Nobody's going to unblock you unless we are sure your future edits will be fundamentally different in just about every regard from your existing edits, and that seems unlikely. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: yes, I misunderstood WP:RS considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). This caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. But now I have realized all my these mistakes and I'm not going to repeat them. Раммон (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, unlock me, please. Раммон (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already declined your unblock. If you wish to be unblocked, make another request and a different admin will review. I suggest you be substantially more convincing, though. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, what do you think could convince another administrator (or you) to unblock me? Раммон (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can. Your actions so far have shown you are actively harmful to Wikipedia. But, it's up to you. Maybe you'll be able to do so. Please stop pinging me, I have nothing more to say. --Yamla (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 27, 2018

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).

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

Request reason:

I have realized my mistakes that led to block and I'm not going to repeat them.

Decline reason:

That's great, but since you haven't explained what those mistakes were or how you intend to avoid repeating them in the future, we don't know if that's true. Please elaborate. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:27, 27 September 2018 (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.

Yunshui, yes, I explained that my mistakes were misunderstanding of the WP:RS rule, that caused considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). And that this caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. I intend to avoid repeating them in the future with using sources that do not violate WP:BLPGOSSIP and other requirements of the WP:RS rule. Also I intend not to argue with local administrators. Раммон (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 2018

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).

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

Request reason:

I have realized my mistakes that led to block and I'm not going to repeat them.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2018 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) I would be most interested to hear your explanation of the reasoning that led you to believe that this request would stand a better chance than your previous (identical) request. —Wasell^(T) 13:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the above is not an attempt to be snarky; I actually would like to understand the thinking behind this kind of repeated request.

I have seen it before, and I find it most peculiar. —Wasell^(T) 13:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasell, unfortunately previous admin (Yunshui) gave up communication with me on the most interesting place - just after my answer to his request to comment my unblock request. I hope that admin who will study my last request, will not be like previous. Раммон (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may very well be, but try to see things from our point of view. Why would we want to find the sentence "I have realized my mistakes that led to block and I'm not going to repeat them" any more convincing than the sentence "I have realized my mistakes that led to block and I'm not going to repeat them"? —Wasell^(T) 13:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how many kilobytes should have my petition about unblocking? Раммон (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, how many kilobytes should I write to be unblocked? Раммон (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't trying to convince me, you are trying to convince the next admin to review your unblock request. So I have no idea. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 15, 2019

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).

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

Request reason:

I have realized my mistakes that led to block (I violated WP:BLPGOSSIP, I misunderstood WP:RS considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). This caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. And at first I supposed that administrator who had blocked me, had made an error. But now I realized that he was absolutely right) and I'm not going to repeat my mistakes.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2019 (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.

March 19, 2019

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).

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

Request reason:

I have realized my mistakes that led to block (I violated WP:BLPGOSSIP, I misunderstood WP:RS considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). This caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. And at first I supposed that administrator who had blocked me, had made an error. But now I realized that he was absolutely right) and I'm not going to repeat my mistakes.

Decline reason:

This unblock request is identical to your previous one which did not convince anyone. As you are clearly told to substantially reword your request, you are just wasting our time. I'm procedurally declining this unblock request. You are welcome to make exactly one more unblock request, substantially different from your existing requests. If you waste our time further, I will revoke your access to this talk page. Yamla (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2019 (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.

June 5, 2019

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have realized my mistakes that led to block (I violated WP:BLPGOSSIP, I misunderstood WP:RS considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). This caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. And at first I supposed that administrator who had blocked me, had made an error. But now I realized that he was absolutely right) and I'm not going to repeat my mistakes. Beside that all the time after the block I have been taking part in other Wikimedia's sites - in the Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. In the Russian Wikipedia I have the next flags: editor, rollbacker, suppressredirect and uploader. In the Wikidata I have flag rollbacker. Also in Russian Wikinews I have flag autoreview.

Accept reason:

User seems to have genuinely improved their knowledge of WP policy. Sasquatch t|c 20:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What areas do you plan to edit after your unblock? What have you learned since the block about what is a reliable source from editing on other wikis? Sasquatch t|c 23:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not a plan to edit some specific areas of articles. As to reliable sources, I use academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. Also I use well-established news outlets (in accordance with WP:NEWSORG). Раммон (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your contributions to other projects and the length of this block, I will grant your unblock request on the condition that stick to reliable sources and refrain from edit warring, especially on Russia related articles. Sasquatch t|c 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (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) 16:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:YouTubeWLogo

Template:YouTubeWLogo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Comment

The above template is a pro-forma FYI. It does not imply any problems with your editing. In fact, if you look at my own talk page you'll see that I post the same thing to myself on a regular basis, and try to hand them out to other climate editors from time to time. If you wish to discuss it, just add a note in this thread and I'll be notified via my watchlist. Thanks for your interest in climate change topics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive RFC use

Hi.... RFC is a tool when local discussion has gone on for a time without any resolution. If everyone instantly invoked RFC for every discussion the flood of rfc notices would dwarf the recent record Greenland ice sheet melt. So.... please save that for when just talking to page regulars has been unable to resolve the dispute. In fact, its usually good practice to discuss WP:Dispute resolution options, including RFC, with the other editors before just unilaterally going there. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Thunbergjugend" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thunbergjugend. Since you had some involvement with the Thunbergjugend redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

frivolous redirects

Please refrain from making any more redirects to Greta Thunberg without first gaining consensus for them at Talk:Greta Thunberg. Relevant P&G include

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Make the World Greta Again" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Make the World Greta Again. Since you had some involvement with the Make the World Greta Again redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2019 (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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:20, 11 February 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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]