Jump to content

User talk:Contaldo80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Contaldo80, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  karmafist 03:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Sullivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amending an RfC

[edit]

Hi, regarding this edit. It was not necessary to remove the |rfcid=205BC23 parameter, since Legobot (talk · contribs) handles a changed opening statement perfectly well. Regarding this edit: the presence of a second {{rfc}} template confused Legobot, as may be seen from the following two edits. To add another RfC category, it is merely necessry to add it immediately after existing categories, as in {{Rfc|reli|soc}}. In summary: {{rfc|reli|rfcid=205BC23}} could have been altered to {{rfc|reli|soc|rfcid=205BC23}} and Legobot would have handled it in its stride. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Contaldo80. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Contaldo80. 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]

Healing the centurion's servant

[edit]

Dear Contaldo80,

Please have a look at my remark at Talk:Healing the centurion's servant. Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article36352038.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/nyregion/john-mcneill-priest-who-pushed-catholic-church-to-welcome-gays-dies-at-90.html?_r=0 https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/patron-saint-lgbt-catholics-john-j-mcneill-90-dies, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've also been edit-warring with the IPv6 editor to remove the copyvio blanking template. Two things: first, as an experienced editor you must know you shouldn't be edit-warring, anywhere, ever, for any reason; and second, you shouldn't be removing the blanking template, which carries in large letters the message "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". For the moment, you can disregard the CCI Notice above – I really hope that we're not going to find that to be necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Justlettersandnumbers. To be honest it wasn't my intention to edit war - once I felt I was slipping into that then I deliberately held back. I had genuine concerns with the way that this other editor was approaching the matter. Particularly as their edit history suggests a combatative stance on a range of articles. They also failed to list the copyright issue correctly and so the opportunities to respond through that route were not straightforward. A look at the article did not suggest the copyright issues extended throughout the whole article - only really in one of two places. Part of the issue is that the number of sources available for the subject matter are limited and so the article text will somewhat need to align with what we have if we aren't going to get the alternative response - which is that the text isn't close enough to the source and so can't be used. My intention was to fix those egregious examples where I saw them as a way forward. The other editor just wanted to blank the whole thing. I must assume good faith on his part of I have been burnt many times by editors with a strong religious motivation wanting to use the supposed rules to write out any mentions of gay catholics. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Contaldo80! To be honest, I wasn't too impressed by anybody's behaviour there – I left a note for the IPv6 editor also. The copyright problem does not affect all the text as far as I'm aware, but whoever deals with it will surely check for older problems too as a matter of routine. As in all our articles, the facts, ideas and concepts of the source can be freely represented in our article, but the language used to convey them must be entirely original, not that of the source. You can rewrite the page without the copyvio (click the third "show" link at middle right for a special page to start that on), or – if you prefer – I can just revert the problem edits and leave you to rewrite/re-add that material as you wish, as I have already done at The Church and the Homosexual. Let me know? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant - thanks. Much appreciated. Can you maybe revert the problem edits and that will let me see what we have left in the article and what we need to focus on in terms of improvements. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that now, and came here just to tell you that. However, I'm seriously unamused to see the section below this. I thought I'd just warned you about edit-warring, and that you had listened? Your edit-summary "Hello - do you actually listen? You are not behaving in the way expected of editors. I will just keep reverting and we'll end up nowhere" strongly suggests that I was quite wrong about that. Just keeping on reverting is exactly what you must not do. Please take this as a final warning: if in any article you make the same revert more than once (unless removing copyvio or reverting blatant WP:BLP violations or vandalism, of course), you should expect consequences. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at The Singing Nun 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have declined your 3O request for the above article on the grounds that there are more than two involved editors currently. 3O is intended for disputes between only two involved editors (hence "third opinion"). You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group)) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

nice work - Added a couple of refs

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Keep up the good work Just Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Helena

[edit]

Hello. Please, do not vandalize the page on St Helena of Constantinople. Wikipedia is not the right website to attack religious beliefs. Please, try to be neutral. God bless! --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were not vandalism. At the same time religious beliefs are irrelevant to Wikipedia and to editing. We deal with facts only. And finally don’t push your patronising superstitions with your “god bless” with me. Thank you Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I will start a talk page on St Helena, and feel free to participate. Perhaps, we can reach a compromise. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bainbridge

[edit]

You added a statement and source at this article with this edit, but neglected to add a page number. Can I ask you kindly to provide the page number? It'd be greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes of course. Give me a day to get hold of the book again Contaldo80 (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

newest reverts on Padre Pio

[edit]

the user Rafaelosornio is deleting some of my new information. his argumentation is weak. i presume all is about a religious point of view. what do you suggest to do about that? Mr. bobby (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about a religious point of view, it is about that the central part of the article is pure content of a single author. The full text of Sergio Luzzatto should go in its corresponding section or create a new article on Luzzatto's book. Apparently who wrote the huge section of Luzzatto's book has conflicts of interest. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t have this conversation on my talk page Contaldo80 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed the Conqueror

[edit]

Why do you feel that ParthikS8's added material contradicts the eyewitness reports on Mehmed, like Leonard of Chios? The editor finds that these contradicts the claims of homosexuality, but I don't see anything in them that does.:

"This created an association to the contemporary Christians and Greeks of the Turks as lustful people." ... "Thus boundless lust became assigned to Mehmet. Historical fact however describes a generous man who after capturing Constantinople, worked to restore economic, social and religious stability (both Islamic and Orthodox Christian) to the city."

He is the same user who removed Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies from the talk page.

I am also quite concerned with him adding a hadith supposedly predicting the life of Mehmed, sourced only to a website. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds disruptive to me. Risk of them violating NPOV. Suggest we work together to ensure the article is not distorted further. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Vince Hill, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Burgess (producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia Hotels

[edit]

Hello, I think I brought the Britannia Hotels article closer to reality now. If you think I have not done enough justice for the growing general perception of Britannia Hotels as "Britain's worst hotel chain", please let me know and I will try to find more sources. --Minoa (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Sounds good! Thanks Minoa Contaldo80 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted a very suspicious edit of Britannia Hotels this page needs to be watched. Devokewater (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it

[edit]

Thanks, you beat me to it at Catholic Church and homosexuality, reverting this edit by 87.60.89.102 (talk · contribs). Normally I go overboard on AGF, especially with new users, but removing the defining sentence in so obviously a POV way, I probably wouldn't have been as kind as you were in your edit summary. (Most likely I would have reverted with no message; or perhaps a link to WP:POV and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Anyway, thanks for monitoring the article, and keeping it sane. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC) All good. Thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem statements

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&diff=next&oldid=943247008 – Added material to Catholicism and Homosexuality but also Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS and History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality about the Church being the first to treat AIDS patients and a world leader. But this argument is based on sources close to the Catholic church, including a Jesuit Podcast. The edits don’t’ seem to acknowledge the fact that the Church is a big provider of healthcare in the US, but that other hospitals also provided HIV services. And other countries had responses led by public hospitals – it’s not a particularly Catholic thing. Also the hospitals cited are mainly operating in inner city areas where lots of gay people live. But the podcast also mentions most of the doctors in the catholic hospitals were gay and a lot of homophobia was experienced. But the editor left all of this out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&diff=next&oldid=943251439 - From the summary on the section of history of homosexuality the editor took out references to the Church consistently opposing civil rights for gay people and added instead a paragraph about how the Church is a “world leader” in healthcare for AIDS patients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=941100856 – repeatedly over time has amended text to play down the church condemns homosexuality, favouring a form of words that says the church condemns the act but is respectful towards LGBT people. And that sex for heterosexuals outside marriage is equally condemned as a way to justify the exclusions on homosexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Hill_Mob_%28gay_activist_group%29&type=revision&diff=893468137&oldid=893218225 - In the Lavender Hill Mob (gay activists) resisted references to the names of the founder involved and did not want a statement that they died from AIDS, dismissing it as trivia. Took a lot of push-back from other editors before they relented. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS&diff=next&oldid=955938994 - Added text that claims Catholic theologians are experts in HIV transmission and are focused on a "people-centred approach".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_the_Church&type=revision&diff=949901590&oldid=949895362 - Cited source spoke about protests concerned about the Church's opposition to abortion. Editor changed the wording repeatedly to say protestors opposed Church's "pro-life" stance.

Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS/Archive 1#Text showing bias? - very flimsy set of sources designed to underpin a very particular message about the church's "long-standing" Opposition to contraception.

The sky is blue

[edit]

Contaldo, I'd very much like to be able to work with you, but it is becoming increasingly clear (see your flurry of recent talk page comments, e.g.) that you are simply going to oppose everything I do or say, and support every person who disagrees with me, regardless of the circumstnaces. I have to wonder what you would do in a discussion if I claimed that the sky was blue, or that two and two was four. There are going to be times when I am wrong. When I don't get it right. When consensus moves against me. I get it. It is much easier to deal with those situations, and to end up with better articles as a result, when discussions are based in fact and policy, and not on Pavlovian reactions. What do you say we reset our relationship and move forward collaboratively? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I am always happy to work constructively with other editors. However, I have expressed serious and long-standing concerns that you cherry-pick sources and choose language that shows an egregious bias towards the official position of the Roman Catholic church. These behaviours have not changed since you were censured for your work relating to the Knights of Columbus. It is my firm belief that you should stand aside from editing articles that deal with Roman Catholicism until you can demonstrate objectivity, particularly in using material from non-Catholic sources, and in permitting material that is critical of Catholic teaching and practice where that is relevant and tells a more rounded narrative. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Guglielmo Rapinett

[edit]

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 Guglielmo Rapinett 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://books.google.com/books?id=giM73n_lca4C&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364. 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. Nick Number (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

[edit]

Hello. There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you may care to join. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alessandro Farnese (cardinal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip II.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16

[edit]

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Levitation (paranormal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Contaldo80&oldid=1187191060"