User talk:Anywikiuser

Please leave a message here

parkrun article

Why did you remove the section I wrote entitled "Stoke Gifford Parish council voted to become the first in the world to charge Parkrun a fee for the use of its grounds". Surely you should give a reason for doing so.

Epzcaw (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the content. If you look at what I did, you'll see I moved it to elsewhere in the article. Actually some of it has suddenly been deleted, but that wasn't me. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SWT stations

Hi just spotted your work at removing the excess service info that user 86.133.248.36 put all over the stations that SWT operate at, and just wanted to say very good work, its such a pain when someone goes and makes pointless changes like that user did! Jrhilton (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! When I first contacted him on User talk:86.133.248.36, he responded by reverting his edits. When he did it again the second time (partly with a similar IP but with the same edits), I did the same thing and he didn't respond so I reverted it myself. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewes

Can you have a look at Talk:Lewes#pronunciation? please? I'm not convinced about your IPA rendition of how Lewes is pronounced. Cheers. Lonegroover (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20 stations in Cardiff

Hi, the IP who removed the 20 stations in cardiff from Cardiff Central page has also done it on Transport in Cardiff. Would you be kind enough to revert it, as I would violate the 3RR if I did it. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder whether this is bending rules a bit, but this isn't peacockery, this is true information so yes, I have added it. I tried to rephrase it rather than reverting it. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ for Template:Major UK railway stations

Hi, I've noticed you've contributed to Template talk:Major UK railway stations and would like to ask you if you'd like to get involved with creating an FAQ for the page. It's currently in My Sandbox 2. Do you think anything can be added, or is inaccurate so should be removed or reworded? I'd welcome your feedback on my Talk Page rather than direct edits to the template. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Template talk:Major UK railway stations for a "discussion" on it being renamed. Hammersfan 03/02/09, 13.00 GMT

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Anywikiuser! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 311 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Greg Rzab - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading to Plymouth Line

After several years of discussion the consensus was to split the Reading to Plymouth Line article into three articles - Bristol to Exeter line, Reading to Taunton line, and Exeter to Plymouth line. The split has now been done, though fairly crudely as I am not an expert on the subject. It will need an expert eye to look at it and smooth out the edges. SilkTork *^YES! 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CRoadReading.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CRoadReading.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by Reading Borough Council and was released to the public - I'm not sure what the laws are regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.236.121 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, wasn't logged in when I wrote that. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manchester Lines

Template:Manchester Lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 August

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 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council election, 2014 page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter 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) 00:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloc voting. 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) 10:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Corbyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Kingdom elections, 2016. 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) 10:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anywikiuser. 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]

Nomination for deletion of Template:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (Simple)

Template:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (Simple) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your help and discussion on the issue of deletion and concerns about objectivity of editors. Kmccook (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anywikiuser. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reading (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) 09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turpin case

What were you trying to do with </note> in this edit? --Jeremyb (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great deal, other than clarify that the deactivated phone could still be used to make emergency calls and change a reference from "officers" to "deputies". Anywikiuser (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

County towns

In an edit summary for Abingdon-on-Thames, you wrote "It should be obvious that a county town would have been within its county." Maybe obvious, but not necessarily true. In the 1980s, there was a county-level entity in south Wales which did not include its own seat of local government. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I wasn't quite sure how to word it. I could have put "Historically the county town of Berkshire and within its boundaries..." or "Historically in Berkshire and the county town of Berkshire". but those just seemed unwieldy. How about "Historically in Berkshire and its county town until 1867..." perhaps? Anywikiuser (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two RFCs about third parties and election infoboxes

You probably know about this already, but I am giving the same pointer to all participants at the article talk page, so just in case you didn't catch it when I mentioned it.... here you go.... Hi, you commented in a thread at the talk page for the special election in PA. FYI, I have started two RFCs at the talk page for the WP:E&R. The first one is here and the second follows it. Please consider repeating or adding your comments to those RFCs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Police cadets in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lambert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom local elections, 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Michael Cimino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heaven's Gate

Nineteen Eighty-Four (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Big Brother

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arup

Grenfell Tower fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Owen Jones

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate your citation template

Hello. You added a reference to Emergency medical services using a French citation template. For whatever reason, the English Wikipedia software isn't understanding it, and it's causing an error message to display rather than the reference. Please translate it into English. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Grenfell Tower fire does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! MPS1992 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Her Majesty's Prison Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Air medical services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden hour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anywikiuser. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anywikiuser. 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]

Invite to help edit

Hello Anywikiuser, saw you posting on the Stop and frisk in New York City and wanted to invite you to help out with Terry stop. Also plan on working on the following: Consent search, Traffic stop, Terry v. Ohio and Whren v. United States. But, Terry stop is where most of the work has been so far. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information sent to me while logged out

January 2019

Hello, I'm Ruyter. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Article (grammar) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2019

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Girth Summit: I have an issue though with seeing users oppose my edit because there is "no consensus for change" when my attempts to discuss this on the Talk Page have only received one response, hardly a consensus. I support the idea of WP:BRD. What do you do if the 'D' part is hard to come by? And that's a shame, because I'm pretty sure that there are a large number of users watching the placebo page, who want it to informative and truthful.

I've been trying to add a study that suggests that placebos can reduce feelings of nausea. It's from a reliable source, the findings are represented well, it's relevant to the article, agrees with the 2010 Cochrane study...so why try to block it? My conclusion is that I think I'm being mistaken for someone who's promoting pseudoscience. It's frustrating.

But I don't see how revealing that the placebo effect can reduce nausea is benefiting alternative medicine. It doesn't detract from the myriad of reasons against using it. On the other hand, many of us will meet people who have taken alternative medicine and have been deceived into thinking it has worked on them. People will be less at risk of being drawn towards alternative medicine if they understand how this deception works. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy on consensus discusses this. The issue has only been on the talk page for a couple of days - there's no deadline for Wikipedia to be finished, give it a bit longer to see if anyone responds. If they do not, your next step is to go down the dispute resolution route. Giving up on discussion after two days and just reinserting your content is not the right way to approach this, and will probably lead to your IP address being blocked. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll wait until at least a week has passed. The only issue is that discussions on that page seem to get quickly archived, judging by the talk page history. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell Tower fire

Hi. I undid your change to Grenfell Tower fire because it broke a shedload of named references. If you scroll down to the reference section on this version, you'll see what I mean. If it had been one or two, I'd have mended them, but when it's something like this, better to go back and start again lest something else get broken. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

Thanks very much for your message. It certainly does seem that rather a lot of quite different things can be meant now by the term 'alternative medicine' & it may be a mistake to have them all in the same article, we all seem to be continually talking at cross purposes. 'Experimental' isn't a word that science has exclusive rights over, I have a basic idea of how science & medical science progresses but we all experiment in small informal ways every day don't we? This is one reason why I've remained on the sidelines, trying to get some clarity over concepts - but then i am criticised because people say if i'm not editing the article then 'what am i doing there?' When people are working on a scientific paper then perhaps 'experimental' can have a specific meaning in a conversation amongst peers but if people search wikipedia looking for info on a subject like this they're not all going to be scientists. Here's a story that's been in the news a lot https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=epilepsy+cannabis but how did people discover that cannabis could be used to control epilepsy? Controlled trials are needed now to work out how to do this safely but discoveries like this don't happen by waiting for mainstream cultural attitudes & mainstream laws & mainstream science funding, science gets interested in the wake of informal experimentation. Who in the 1970ies had ever heard of the endocannabinoid system? Would it have been thought then there were "plausible mechanisms" enabling the developments we're now seeing? Another point is that it isn't the first time that I've come across the phenomenon of the interests of ordinary innocent people getting caught up in specious arguments used in fights over departmental funding... Interesting times :o) 31.51.220.92 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Community policing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Alderson (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) 09:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited T. Dan Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dobson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited T. Dan Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dobson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 18 September 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bristol Lines

Template:Bristol Lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishops

Thank you for correcting my mistaken mentions of Fisher chez William Temple. I had given the former's article a wash-and-brush-up just before turning to Temple's, and the old boy must still have been in my mind. I'm most grateful for your amendments. (If Archbishops are of interest, by the way, I have Randall Davidson up for peer review, but of course don't look in if not interested.) Kind regards, Tim riley talk 09:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks, and thank you as well for your work on these articles. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wake

Could you please read your own source instead of adding incorrect information? If you read your source, it refers to a meeting after the funeral. Not to the drinks served. The Banner talk 11:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you correct it? Anywikiuser (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health in the United Kingdom

You are being a bit radical. Perhaps you should discuss on the talk page? Rathfelder (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started one on the talk page.

Proposed deletion of File:Moneybassline.GIF

The file File:Moneybassline.GIF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hydroxychloroquine

I should have left your revert alone. Turns out that editor actually isn't new, and is a serial unsigned cranky opinion poster, often in the middle of other editors' years-old posts, and seldom in date order. You probably already knew this. Ah well. Capewearer (talk) 11:11, 31 July 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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Music journalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Click.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chapel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarborough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of crematoria in England

Thank you for picking up where I left off. In reply to your comment, the gallery format for pics of the Greater London crematoria was a good idea of mine but what wasn't good was the way my attempt turned out (not showing the pictures), hence my undoing it hoping that someone more experienced in this way of formatting may be encouraged to attempt it.Cloptonson (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought that was what had happened. Thanks for contributing 95% of the list a few months ago. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of crematoria in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abingdon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 April 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Southampton Lines

Template:Southampton Lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo article

I see that you did some work on the Placebo article, there's a long standing mis-reference dating to:

Revision as of 11:15, 22 August 2019 (edit) (undo) Anywikiuser (talk | contribs) (Restructured lede, moving effects and non-effects to a higher paragraph; various other tweaks.)

which puts reference (4) as supporting the text "In general, placebos can affect how patients perceive their condition and encourage the body's chemical processes for relieving pain" - the given reference doesn't in fact support that. I'm unclear how to unpick this particular problem, so just alerting you as a possibly (still) interested editor. In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitro Infidelium (talk • contribs)

Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire

Why did you request to move this article name without discussion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged As a friend, please allow me to jump in. I think He believed that explaining to me the need for a parent article on the historical process was sufficient. It wasn't for me and you because we have been through all the trauma of previous ups and downs with this article that he knows nothing about. But don't be upset about this one. This editor is acting in good faith, with good sense, and some truly excellent skills of organization. Let's let him work - and stay out of his way as much as humanly possible - (that's for me!) - and he has agreed to leave the title until content settles and we see where we are. It's possible he may be right! He knows, now, that there are plenty of others out in wikiworld that care about this article, so I genuinely do not think there will be a problem working this out - eventually. We will achieve consensus on the title. It will just be a while.

Anywikiuser. In keeping with cooperation - though not avoiding interference yet - I added a division: "Consequences of conversion that might have prevented spread". Please do feel free to change that title!! It's awkward, but I was so impressed by your addition of "grass roots" that I thought this would be a good addition to the discussion as well. If you don't like it, I have no problem with you just removing it.

I will now go back to working on the article I was focused on before you came to Christianization's rescue. I am going to try and discipline myself to stay there and limit my interaction - which might be termed interference - on H of C of RE. I promise that Laurel and I are not averse to change - it's just that we have seen some bad behavior where this article is concerned. That has nothing to do with you though, and I want you to continue to do what you think is best. Laurel, you must also feel free to participate in this article's regeneration. We should keep watching, and I thank you for doing that, but let's do so in an encouraging way because this editor has good intentions and skills that totally rock!! I am hoping he will be a new friend by the end of this - if only he cleans up the red in the reference list... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The absolutely amazingly tremendous Wham2001 has come along behind us both and cleaned up our references. In doing so, it looks as if these refs have been taken from multiple other WP articles. That's okay, so long as these are not unattributed quotes from the content as well. When content is copied from other WP articles it must be attributed. Otherwise this whole article is subject to being blanked for copyright problems. Please fix immediately if needed!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you again for all your efforts on Christianization of RE. Would you be willing to look at more articles I think need your help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one? Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation It's been redone 3 times and I'm still not happy with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire

We did it!! Thanx very much to you and your wonderful work on this article, it is now a GA on its third try. Thank you again! Happy new year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for your work. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:54, 29 December 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salisbury Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belfry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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

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

You're at 3 revisions already, so well into blockable territory. Cut it out before someone notices and drags you to the relevant noticeboard. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to post a similar notice on your talk page? You reverted my edits as often as I reverted yours. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Raladic (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I thought about posting a similar notice on your talk page. But I decided not to. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]