User talk:FlutterDash344

FlutterDash344, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FlutterDash344! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome FlutterDash344!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,301,687 registered editors!

Hello, FlutterDash344. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful:

The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia

A Primer for Newcomers

Introduction to Wikipedia

Wikipedia Training Modules

Simplified Manual of Style

Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:

1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly

2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources

3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources

Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia
Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia
Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

October 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Erky Perky. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop adding how long shows have been in production/have aired in the 'end date' field' This is entirely unnecessary for television/film articles and is moreso used within others such as Template:Infobox company. Magitroopa (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note per Help:Minor edit that "Adding or removing content in an article" should not be marked as a minor edit, like many of your edits have been marked as. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop changing dates without a source, such as on List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family. Simply stating that, "it's correct" is not useful whatsoever and should be supported by a source rather than you suddenly decided it is incorrect. Magitroopa (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family. You've already been told to provide a source regarding the date change. The October 15 date is also the date currently listed on the article itself, so you changing it to October 10 does not make sense at all. Magitroopa (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlutterDash344. I notice that you blanked the Little Bear article after making an accidental edit. In future the best course of action may just be to undo the edit in Page History. It's almost never a good idea to blank a page. In addition, if you are struggling with editing Wiki markup then you might find it easier to edit using the Visual Editor or spending some time practicing in a Sandbox. Thanks --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thinking that every animated show was made in flash, but even if a show is made in flash, it doesn't need to be in the lead. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Adventures of Kid Danger. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honsetly, I think he needs to be reported, he did more danger then what he did to Kid Danger, making him doing WP:NOTHERE. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - further to the above, I count 250 near-identical edits from your account on separate articles, in which you change 'animated' to 'Flash animated' in the article's lead. I've spot-checked a few of them, and none of the ones I checked contain a sourced assertion to the effect that Flash was used in the animation process. To that end, I have a few questions:

Have you read WP:V? (If not, please do so)
Have you read WP:MEATBOT? (If not, please do so)

You decided to make all these edits - do you know whether or not reliable sourcing exists to say that these animations were made using Flash? If such sourcing exists, you should add it to the article when you make the change; if it doesn't exist, you shouldn't be making the change. I'm going to revert these edits now, because I don't have time to check each and every one of them to see if it's supported by the article content or sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 27 January 2021 (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).

FlutterDash344 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just wanted to say that I should not have done all of those disruptive edits in the first place. Even though you changed the block to indefinite, I still wish I want to be unblocked. I should have never disrupted the encyclopaedia by changing "animated" to "Flash animated" in the lead section. Therefore, I want to be unblocked. I am really sorry for doing that and I will never do it again.

Decline reason:

You are correct that you should never have disrupted the encyclopedia. But you've given us no reason to believe you'd edit constructively if unblocked, so I am declining your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2021 (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.

Can you please give me another chance?

What am I supposed to do? I can't edit at all now.

Thanks for responding. Can you tell me why you made those edits in the first place, and how you made them? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used Wikipedia's list of animated TV series eg. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animated_television_series_of_2020. Sorry for not including sources saying that the series was Flash animated.

Hmm. It looks like you went through all of the entries on those lists which said that the animations were made using Flash. There's a couple of things to unpick here.

First, you need to understand that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source - this is specifically covered at WP:UGC. One Wikipedia article/list saying something is not a reason to change another article.
Now, if another Wikipedia article contains a sourced assertion, that source could be used to support a similar assertion in a different article. Looking at those lists though, I'm not seeing any sources supporting the 'technique' field in the tables. I've only looked at a couple of the lists, but that seems to be the general pattern. So these definitely should be used to support changes in other articles.
We've then got the issue of what a lead is. MOS:LEAD goes into this in detail, but essentially it's a summary of the rest of the article. Leads shouldn't contain information that isn't contained elsewhere in the article - so, if Flash isn't mentioned elsewhere, it ought not to be in lead.
Fundamentally though, on top of the rest of this, we've got the issue of making mass changes without discussion. Nobody minds if someone makes a WP:BOLD change to an article - if anyone disagrees they can revert it, and then discuss it on the talk page. What you shouldn't do however is make a unilateral decision about a change you think should happen, and then go about changing 250 pages in quick succession without seeing whether anyone agrees. A discussion showing a clear consensus at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Animation, or something along those lines, is what I'd expect to happen before anyone embarked on changes like the ones that you made.

So, that was a pretty bad idea for several reasons. Above, I can see some prior warnings about making unsourced changes. If you want to be unblocked, you should first read through all those links I've given you, and then make another unblock request in which you indicate clearly that you understand why your edits were disruptive, and you undertake (a) not to add unsourced content again to any article, and (b) not to make mass changes again without discussion and clear consensus for you to do so. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

FlutterDash344 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've read the links and I understand that my edits were disruptive. I'm very sorry for this. a. I will not make edits without providing a verifiable source b. I will not make mass edits without discussion on the talk page and consensus. I would really appreciate it if I could have another chance. Thank you.

Accept reason:

I will remove the block to give you another chance. If you have any questions, please ask either someone directly, or at the Teahouse or Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are close to being unblocked, but please explain how your edits were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were disruptive because I didn't use a verified source and I did mass edits without a consensus . I also changed information in the lead content that wasn't contained elsewhere in the article such as "animated" to "Flash animated". It was not my intention to be disruptive. Thank you for explaining it to me and I understand now. I will not do that ever again and I sincerely apologize for the disruptive edits. I was using a Wikipedia page with no verifiable source which was unreliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlutterDash344 (talk • contribs)

Girth Summit Do you have any concerns about an unblock here? 331dot (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, no concerns, I think they get the point. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account concerns

FlutterDash344, welcome back to Wikipedia. In the last ANI thread about you, someone said that your account is probably hacked. It's clear that your account is not hacked, but bear in mind about security of your account. You'll need to use strong passwords. Mario Jump 83! 09:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (As Told by Ginger) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When were unbloced

And when we're unblocked don't go reverting stuff again you know as told by ginger ended in 2006 so what's the point of battling as told by ginger is a TV seires that ran from 2000-2006 Theshavia29912 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, even while partially blocked from a related page for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I did not do anything wrong. I was just saying that Theshavia29912's edits were wrong and incorrect. I did not want to be blocked in the first place, but I did so anyway. I will not edit war ever again. I was continuosly reverting edits on the As Told by Ginger page and Theshavia29912 just kept reverting them because I thought I did not want to get blocked in the first place. I was also edit warring with the user on The Cramp Twins because I kept changing the date from September 2, 2006 to 2004 and got really tired of reverting all the time. So what I'm saying is that if I stopped reverting, the user would probably get blocked like I did. I'm really sorry for this and I will not do it again. It all started when Siahforrest kept reverting my edits on several articles on March 16. I was trying to revert them all, but I did not want to get blocked, so I left them alone. Now I want some privacy for the user. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned when you say "I did not do anything wrong" that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what edit warring is. Yes, you did do something wrong. Please actually read WP:Edit warring, and provide a more self-aware unblock request. It is important that you stop edit warring, because the next time it will likely become an indef block, and since your last indefinite block was lifted to give you one more chance, the next one will quite likely never be lifted.

I will likely not be around until the 5th, so if you want to request an unblock before then, you should use the {{unblock}} template as explained in the block notice. You should also re-read WP:GAB (also in the block notice) before making the request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably leave my account alone next time so that I don't edit war ever again. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your problems begin with your statement that "I did not do anything wrong." You did, and you've been doing it. Until you stop denying that you've been disruptive, you will not change anyone's mind. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wrong. I did do something wrong. All I did wrong was edit war until I got blocked. And I couldn't ask for Theshavia29912 reverting my edits all the time because I clearly did do something disruptive. And in 2 months from now I said I was not going to disrupt the encyclopaedia ever again because I changed the lead from "animated" to "Flash animated" even though I was trying to contribute constructively. So, I guess I did do something wrong after all. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A

If you don't tell me how is it Unsourced I'm going to have to let a admin know cause there just gonna block both of us so stop putting in false info Do you have anything better to do I'm talking to you straight up real talk be a healthier wikipedia editor Mjforrest 67136713 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And your probably not gonna respond cause you have no good excuse to remove a completely sourced edit Mjforrest 67136713 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjforrest 67136713: I don't think you understand how sourcing works. You thought As Told by Ginger ended on November 14, 2006 but it didn't – it ended on October 23, 2016. I have constantly told you to stop adding unsourced content but you keep doing it, and if you keep doing it I'm going to have to report you to an admin for disruptive editing. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not here

Acroterion, I took them at their word when they said "I'll probably leave my account alone next time". I found some logged-out BS, pure childish stuff, from a month and a half ago. Nothing worth blocking over now, but certainly another stop on the way to a NOTHERE block. Flutterdash, you have 36 sandboxes full of stuff. I suggest you turn your focus onto them, and turning them into articles, rather than tweaking around your user page which looks more and more like a personal website. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I've stopped editing my userpage. I'll edit in my sandboxes instead. FlutterDash344 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the sections Soft brink brands, Phone/Computer Products, Computer brands, Animals, and Computer software to User:FlutterDash344/sandbox35. FlutterDash344 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2021

I suggest you focus on contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than fooling around with userpage self-aggrandizement that does nothing to help the project. It is clear from a number of indicators that you are very young, and that you're having trouble with the idea that the adults here expect you to behave, if not entirely as an adult, then at least with some measure of maturity. However, that's essential. You're going to have to slow down and realize that you need a few years to figure things out. If you don't, we may have to remove your editing privileges until time gives you a mature perspective. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just contribute to the articles and not just my userpage for now on, because it seems to be a lot of work for me and I've already removed promotional stuff out of my userpage because I really thought I wanted it in the first place and then I realized that after Drmies told me that I have to clear promotional stuff out of there I realized that I did not need it after all and so I removed it out of there and into sandbox 35 of FlutterDash344 but then the user deleted sandbox 35 of FlutterDash344. So now that I've completely stopped editing my userpage I will never do that ever again. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, slow down, take it easy. Brevity is best. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll try to slow down so that I don't risk getting blocked. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Overcast07. I noticed that you recently removed content from My Little Pony: A New Generation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Overcast07 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civilized animals

From TV Tropes: "Civilized Animals exhibit some form of civilized manner, but otherwise occupy their species' natural role in the ecosystem and (especially) the food chain. They generally display half the mannerisms of a human character and half the mannerisms of an animal character. They may wear clothes (often being accessory wearing, half dressed or even barefoot, but otherwise fully-dressed), or may live in houses, and are frequently depicted as walking on two legs; but their anthropomorphism stops abruptly at this point, as their everyday concerns are for ordinary activities such as acquiring food and avoiding predation by larger animals. Civilized Animals are typical of children's stories, especially that of British literature.

Like Funny Animals, Civilized Animals usually have a body that is generally shaped like that of their respective species, even though they are typically bipedal. Civilized Animals, like Funny Animals, tend to be bipedal even if their species is not naturally so, and most Civilized Animal birds have Feather Fingers, whether their wings look completely like wings or look like arms. Many Civilized Animals can shift between using two legs and four.

A related trope is Mouse World.

Civilized Animals differ from their neighbors on the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism as follows:

A Funny Animal has most or even all the mannerisms of a human character, and generally if replaced by a human, the plot will be mostly or even nearly identical. A Partially Civilized Animal exhibits some form of civilized behavior, but is more likely to have a minimally anthropomorphized body shape and the majority of the mannerisms are ones you would expect in an animal. Talking Animals and Speech Impaired Animals have all the body shape and mannerisms of the animal; their anthropomorphism is strictly limited to the fact that they talk and in some cases walk on two legs. This is not to be confused with Beast Man, which is for a species that for some reason bears a resemblance to an Earth animal, despite not being related."

The characters in My Little Pony certainly fit the definition. Countryboy603 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Countryboy603:, TV Tropes is not a reliable source to use in Wikipedia, especially since TV Trope is rife with personal opinions, original research and synthesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Countryboy603: I agree with Apokryltaros on this one – TV Tropes is not a reliable source of information to be used on Wikipedia. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: A New Generation (2021)

The film's Netflix page clearly classified this film as a musical adventure (subtly with this quote "A musical adventure with the voices of Vanessa Hudgens, Kimiko Glenn, Sofia Carson, James Marsden, Jane Krakowski and more."), not a straight up comedy film. -Prince Silversaddle (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

Hi, FD344. Apologies for this completely random message but I just wanted to have a nice chat and ask you a question. In August, you said [i]n about a month's time, [you would] change [your] username from "FlutterDash344" to "ZippPipp344". It has been over two months since then so I was wondering: what happened? Pamzeis (talk) 04:02, 3 November 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User talk:Eliastroadmire

Hello, I'm 2600:1700:9AD0:4AB0:4C60:9003:8D84:1E2. I noticed that you recently removed content from User talk:Eliastroadmire without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 2600:1700:9AD0:4AB0:4C60:9003:8D84:1E2 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Nathan Fielder: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –DMartin 04:45, 2 August 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, FlutterDash344,

I am curious, you were gone almost a year and now you've returned to devote yourself to only participating in AFD deletion discussions, an activity you never did before. It makes me wonder if your account has been compromised.

Why the sudden interest in AFDs to the inclusion of all of your previous editing interests? Thank you for any insight you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]