User talk:Micga

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pomerania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puck. 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) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of official business registers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tender.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bailiff into List of official business registers. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 00:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Micga! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. For instance, this edit to Tuchola Forest was very much not minor. Not only did it add content, it added content on a quite sensitive subject. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish historical regions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galicia (Eastern Europe)

You can't simply tear apart a major article and move the pieces around that way. Please start a discussion on the talk page. WQUlrich (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may be true, but you still can't do that. It's a really MAJOR decision and the process is more complicated than you think, involving talk pages, links etc. etc. PLEASE start a discussion and get some experienced input.WQUlrich (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That article is semi-protected...you have to be autoconfirmed to edit. If you're really a new user (as you appear to be) you can't be autoconfirmed. How did you get around that? WQUlrich (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to merge articles but, again, this is not a decision you should make alone. I would suggest that you visit this page: Wikipedia:Teahouse, and get some advice from users whose job it is to help. WQUlrich (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That, I don't know. It looks like your account was renamed by the administrators. How did you get the original name back?...Oh, never mind, this is getting to be out of my territory. That article has been there since 2003 and has links to almost every language. It really should to be discussed. WQUlrich (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Please read our basic policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:Source before continuing your unilateral movements of pages. Please also read Wikipedia:Moving a page carefully. Borsoka (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, would seem that all this new(?) editor's edits need to be reversed and possibly other action taken. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're still at 100% "minor" edits, 0% summaries, despite my notices a week ago. @Micga: Did you read these notices? Wikipedia is a collaborative process and it is extremely important to make clear to other editors what you're doing, and to not mislead people by saying major edits are minor. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micga is still marking major edits as minor. Mellk (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk, I've reported them at the ANI. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Micga's strange moves ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

The block will automatically end after 36 hours so there is no need for asking review. That said, you really need to understand Wikipedia's policies of making page moves. Moving historical pages or anything such without initiating a discussion is simply disruption. If you want any page to be split/moved in future, just you the article's talk page for proposal. Gain a consensus there and the process will be completed by non-involved admins/volunteers having the rights to do so. Please. If you carry the mass-moves after your block ends, you might face an indefinite block. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but still, AFAIR, I did not edit any of the historical pages today, except for reverting a deletion of an entire section in King of Ruthenia without even a vague comment. On the other hand, User:Pjarkur has just reverted two articles European Social Fund and LEADER programme with comments „Not reflected in material” and „we would use either but not both”, respectovely. If the official EU sites (links given below) are not „material”, then what on Earth is?!Micga (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=62&langId=en

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld_en

Wikipedia does not have to use whatever the current official name is (see WP:OFFICIAL, WP:NAMECHANGES) and very often does not, and so a new name being made official does not mean that a Wikipedia title change is uncontroversial. The LEADER programme does not use both terms at once. For all but the most minor of pages it's usually preferable to just start a requested move discussion. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, the LEADER change may somehow be disputable (although many official instances of both used together, separated with a dash, exist). But the ESF revert is entirely indefensable, also in the light of the quoted rules, especially in the presence of an existing precedent and a straghtforward Analogy, the Erasmus+ Micga (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Europe moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Global Europe, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish Border Strip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Settlement Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Former eastern territories of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bohemian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Techniques for Cultural Properties

Hello, I see this page has been moved, with the edit summary/explanation that it includes both tangible and intangible cultural properties (as set out at Cultural Property (Japan)). The old, correct title is as set out in English by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, here [1]. That's not to say we don't also want an article about heritage management, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is quite simple: the Agency has awful translators. Cultural property means (according to universally and globally accepted definition) ONLY tangible cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is the general term (covering both tangible and intangible assets). Moreover, conservation is a term used exclusively regarding cultural property (tangible cultural heritage) Micga (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, there is no such thing as intangible cultural property - such expression is intrinsically coontradictory.Micga (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash! Where did such funny views come from - please research & desist/self-revert, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult cultural property and the Hague convention, Thatt is where it comes fromMicga (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In brief: cultural heritage = cultural property (tangible cultural heritage) + intangible cultural heritage

The (Japanese-inspired) Korean "heritage management" system also has such equivalent terms; here is a good book, presumably not translated by the Agency's "awful translators" [2] ; all those→items moves need fixing too, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid they do. i suggest consulting more mainstream sources, like [3] Or [4] Or the UNESCO manual [5]

And another one [6]

Japan-specific "Intangible Cultural Properties", per UNESCO ICH [7]; as you see from the ICH article (caption to the Noh mask), Japan was the forerunner in such things, and the Hague Convention/military may take a while to catch up, I don't know; interestingly, they're now recognizing thematic heritage "stories" combining tangible and intangible cultural properties, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

„ The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Micga (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your starting point is your clear statement above: "there is no such thing as intangible cultural property - such expression is intrinsically coontradictory" (sic); such a statement betrays complete ignorance of the field, especially as pertaining to East Asia (ethnomusicologists etc are all over ICPs (Intangible Cultural Properties) - just check out the literature); I have no more time to waste, but cut it out; if you want to contribute positively to the actual content of the pages, please do; if you just wish disruptively to move everything to conform to your misprisions, I can't help you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What You are tryimg to do is to substitute the generally accepted meaning and usage of the term cultural property throughout the English Wikipedia and impose a completely different one, used almost exclusively in Japan - just because somebody in the Japanese government mistranslated the term some years ago (No, it is not a matter of East Asia: look at the Korean government site: http://english.cha.go.kr/html/HtmlPage.do?pg=/classfication/classification.jsp&mn=EN_02_01. ). I’m afraid this looks like chauvinism. Micga (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all your changes related to this. These are significant changes and should be discussed first to obtain consensus. We can discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#(Disruptive) moves of Cultural Property (Japan)-related pages in order to keep it all in one place. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micga, since others do not seem to have brought this up, I figured I should: "cultural property" is the English for 文化財, while "cultural heritage" corresponds to a different term in Japanese, 文化遺産 (which in turn is the Japanese translation of the UNESCO term). The Japanese national government has also (recently? I first encountered the term in late 2020...) been designating certain sites as "Japan Heritage" (日本遺産). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural property in Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artifact.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

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)

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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say the same thing. Please leave edit summaries. It takes seconds, and is a basic act of courtesy to other editors. GrindtXX (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these undiscussed moves

See WP:RM. You should not be doing these, especially as your new titles mostly use jargon most readers, and especially those outside America, will not recognise. Things that happen in museums relate to museums, not museology. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not plannimg any more of them. Their aim was to ensure naming consistency with the corresponding terms related to libraries and archives, where „...(library science)” And „...(archival science)” was used instead of e „...(library)” And „...(archive)”. I do not personally have any preference for either of the naming conventions, but there has to be consistency. Micga (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there doesn't, especially when the new titles are confusing and hard to parse. Your moves have gone well beyong what you say. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in such situation, the articles with the suffixe ...(library science) ...(library and archival science) should be moved to ...(library and archive) etc. We should at least try to maintain some kind of naming logic. Micga (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the ones i'm bothered about contain the word library at all. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing it! I have been asked to take to the matter to ANI, & if the weather doesn't improve will probably do so, asking for a lengthy ban on making undiscussed moves. I expect I'll get it. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But look at the definition at the beginning of the article, please. It explicitly states (as it did prior to my edits) that the scope of the article is much wider than art, thus causing the original title to mismatch the contents. The official name of lootedart.com (CLAE) is The Central Registry of Looted Cultural Property (top banner) [8], the same applies to the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (UNESCO [9]. The designation used by the US ICE in the context of smuggling is Cultural property, art, and antiquities [10]. But above all, what is the point of keeping a name mismatching the contents so obviously (see Fallacy of the undistributed middle)? Micga (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get it. Your move was reverted by someone else, so clearly was not uncontroversial, & you should have realized it was not likely to be. That is why we have the WP:RM process. Use it! Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that this might be a quasi-"boy who cried wolf" scenario, and the move that I reverted may have actually been a good move (i.e., an exception to the previously established rule) that I only read as bad because it was a unilateral, undiscussed move made by someone who had been called out numerous times, and even blocked, for taking such actions within the last few months. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. My reading of the Looted art article (which was admittedly brief, but probably not as brief as that of Micga, who was working on another article consistently during the same time period and seemingly took no more than 2-3 minutes to consider the move[11]) is that it is specifically about tangible artworks and not things like "cultural landscapes, historic buildings, ... archaeological sites, as well as collections of libraries, archives and museums", but others may disagree.

That being said, however, I do think it would be a very, very good idea for you, Micga, to voluntarily refrain from any more undiscussed page moves, even ones that you think will be uncontroversial, for the foreseeable future, and get to know the RM process instead. Your entire edit history does not contain a single edit summary with the phrase "requested move" in it, so would I be right to guess that you have not filed or participated in such a request even once? (I actually figured out how to answer this: 138 edits to the article talk space, and every single edit summary begins Micga moved page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC) ) I myself have filed numerous RMs in the past even for moves that I suspected would be uncontroversial, because I wanted to play it safe or because I suspected I might have a blind-spot that community discussion could help me notice.[12][13] RMs are the standard way Wikipedians go about changing the titles of articles, and most if not all of the pages you moved should have been handled via this process.[reply]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a good move - Micga has a taste for jargon that would be unlikely to be supported in a proper RM discussion. I certainly would have opposed this one. Johnbod (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I admit I could have discussed it through. But I vehemently oppose the idea that it is a matter of someoneꞌs taste. On the contrary, it is a matter of precision, logic, and maintaining WikipediaꞋs coherence, by respecting its own definitions.Micga (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Micga: Then you should take your own advice and be precise and logical; your unilateral move (reverted by me) of Collection development, a standard library term, to the different subject Collection (library) was anything but precise and logical. Likewise with your attempt to unilaterally redefine Cataloging (library science) to also be about museums, when it is clearly about cataloging in library and information science. The point of Hijiri88 and Johnbod is that your judgment is not as precise and logical as you think it is, which is why you should initiate discussion when changing the scope of articles. Biogeographist (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist: I wrote this specifically in relation to looted art, and not to my edits in general Micga (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micga, are you going to take my advice and stop making unilateral page moves until you have developed a better understanding of how we do things around here (both in terms of general consensus-building and titling our articles)? If not, I think another ANI thread will need to be filed, and you will either be formally banned from moving pages, or possibly indefinitely blocked. The behaviour you have demonstrated since your first block, and in particular within the last week, seems to be very much in the vein of WP:IDHT, and this kind of behaviour is not looked kindly upon by the English Wikipedia community. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: As you see, I did. But I still do not agree with putting the last of my moves in one bag with the previous ones. Micga (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of legal entity types by country

Hi Micga, wanted to let you know that I reverted the article to the version prior your edits. It had largely been without any sources, and also was too much content/too detailed for a list. You could consider creating a separate Poland-specific article based on your content and reliable sources. And then would link from the list to that article. What do you think?

It appears you added a lot of the same content also to List of official business registers. Any specific reason for this? – NJD-DE (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copied only those parts from the list of official business registers that lists the basic entity types, namely those which are created as such and do not belong to any of the categories listed previously, and which are generic type, but not an individual named institurion. The copied part lists entities types only, not their registers, and not other business registers such as the asset registers, or the registers conferring a status on a pre-existing entity. Micga (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC) In fact, the copied parts belong rather in the List of legal entity types by country that in the List of official business registers, and if they should be removed from one of them, it is the latter. Of course, the number of entity types created by the polish lawmakers is reckless, but it does not depend on me :) Micga (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what I intend to do, is to restore your revert, albeit with added references, but to delete the corresponding sections in the List of official business registers. Micga (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Global Europe

Hello, Micga. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Global Europe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation and restoration of immovable cultural property

Hi Micga. Can I ask why you intent on introducing cite errors into Conservation and restoration of immovable cultural property? If you scroll to the bottom of the article you see the large red error message I'm mean, and the fact these are refs just randomly appended to the bottom of the article. These are both caused by refs appearing after the reflist. This can be cured by either removing the refs from the Related Journal section or by having the section above the {reflist}. If you're don't want the latter option can I suggest converting the refs into direct link, e.g The journal of example. This would provide the link without broken references being an issue. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not notice your edit. Fixed that. Micga (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for sorting it. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polonization

I noticed a heavy Polonization act in the Western Pomerania article fulfilled by you. Overemphasize the Polishness of the region although only around 10% of the region is Polish. For example including national parks which are clearly not in the region or long-talking about a Szczecin quarter which was once an independent town, to be able to talk about Polish towns longer than without this, or writing Polish translations before German ones although G is before P. Or not writing about Stralsund or Greifswald in the beginning section but instead about every tiny Polish village. Tuulbar (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cannot take responsability for the entire article, as I modified only parts of it. But as far as former towns are concerned, I included both former towns Dąbie and Damgarten treating them equally, so I do not see any bias here. I just expanded the Polish towns list, but the order (Polish vs German) was already in the article earlier. As far as Stralsund and Greifswald are concerned, it was probably someome′s accidental mistake (both should be listed at the beginning of the German places separately as cities, while the remaining other German places should be listed as towns). The problem with the national parks is quite different, it is caused by the confusing name of the article, which may be understood in many ways. I personally think that the article should be renamed Hither Pomerania, while the Western Pomerania article should become a short clarification, how the term may be understood, similar to Middle Pomerania.Micga (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Ribnitz-Damgarten case and the Szczecin quarter case are much different. Because if Szczecin is already talked about as a part of the region, the quarter of it is automatically also talked about, no matter if it was an independent town before or not. At Ribnitz-Damgarten we have to say that only the Damgarten village is Pomeranian, because Ribnitz is Mecklenburg and was united with Damgarten during East Germany, because they wanted the people to forget about Pomerania and about the border between the two lands. Also, the whole country was only named Mecklenburg (also the Pomeranian part). That's why they put both together so that no one remembers the border. They also wanted to name the city Fischhausen (fish houses) i think, because they said, the word Ribnitz comes from fish. But when they realized that also the river in Ribnitz-Damgarten is of foreign language (Recknitz is like the Croatian Rijeka, because this also means river (Fiume) in Italian), they didn't do it anymore. I think, that also the river in Greifswald (Ryck) is like the Croatian. I also don't know if the Wolin island is really part of the region or from which source this comes. Actually it is on the wrong side of the river already. Stralsund was the most important town of the whole Pomerania, because of the Strelasund, and Szczecin was only an industry port and there was even less going on in east Pomerania. That's why also the large university of Pomerania was near Stralsund in Greifswald. You also, one time, deleted Sassnitz, and instead, wrote about Pasewalk. But i think that Sassnitz which is grown together with Sagard, is more important than Pasewalk. Because of the large Sassnitz-new Mukran port. I also think that Barth is more important than Pasewalk because i think in Barth they want to rebuild the railways to the large peninsula (Fischland) in front of it, just like they also want to rebuild the Karnin bridge to Usedom. I think what Stralsund is of Rügen, is Wolgast of Usedom, and Barth of Fischland. Tuulbar (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Global Europe

Hello, Micga. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Global Europe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 17 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

This appears to be a recurring issue Please stop moving titles without discussion, or according to your personal preferences. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all of your undiscussed bold moves. Some of them may have merit, but it is incumbent upon you to discuss them first. This has been a recurring problem,. and has led to blocks. You are therefore warned that if this recurs, you may be blocked without further warning. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor edits"

Some of these things you've been labelling as "minor edit" on cultural genocide are really substantial - one was nearly 900 bytes! That's extremely not minor. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of war crimes committed during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extermination.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania to Appeasement. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Costa

Your undiscussed move of Jorge Costa has been reverted. Please do not make two-name disambiguation pages without seeking consensus through Wikipedia:Requested moves. BD2412 T 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly-licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Judiciary of Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self-regulation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary of Poland

When adding some information (thank you for that), don't forget about the sources. Citing info is super important. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more careful with the addition of materials? You are e.g. stating in the lead that "Institutions exercising the administration of justice (wymiar sprawiedliwości) are named in the Constitution as the courts and tribunals", while the Constitution itself says that "The administration of justice in the Republic of Poland shall be implemented by the Supreme Court, the common courts, administrative courts and military courts", not mentioning the tribunals? I mean, there's a DYK nomination in air, the GA-class nomination is in sight... We can surely cooperate in this topic, but having to double-check every line doesn't help. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Judiciary of Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pledge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move

Do not engage in cut-and-paste moves. These are not permitted. There is no policy requiring "interwiki compliance" that would justify such an action. If you would like to retitle the pages at issue, make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This is clearly a controversial proposal, and requires discussion and consensus. BD2412 T 23:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the above is a reference to Corporate personhood and juridical personality. I have reverted your cut and paste merger of Ship mortgage and Maritime lien that was not discussed. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Find bruce (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

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

Corporate personhood

added a link pointing to Foundation

Hypothec

added a link pointing to Collateral

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Please don't keep reverting back your preferred version when others object. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Pomerania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Szczecin Voivodeship.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civic Coalition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of legal entity types by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inc..

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Union edits

Hi Micga, if you could please put all of your edits in one diff instead of editing individual things at a time that would be great since it wouldn't clog up the edit history of the article, thanks. ― TUNA × 13:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Micga: just making sure you saw this. ― TUNA × 03:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from European Union into History of the European integration (1948–1957). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Hello. Your changes are more and more controversial. You change a large part of the article according to your own opinion - because you think it's better. It doesn't get any better. Many of your changes are unnecessary or controversial - some users may find some changes hopeless who degrade the quality of the article.

You should stop the changes for the time being so that other users can read them. I remind you that you made 140 changes in a week, it's an absurd amount of changes in a short time. Besides, you do not have permission to change the intro. Consensus is needed for changes to the intro. Your changes in intro of article have been completely undone.

Please put your further changes to the article on hold for a while. Other users should have time to learn about the new changes. Eventually, any user can undo all your changes - if found to be bad. So all the more you should stop your activities now. Later it will get even worse - too many changes can be completely undone - to the time obtaining a consensus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for my opinion - I believe that all your changes to the article should be undone. I find some content redundant, you have changed section names, you have changed the layout of the article. I believe the article was better without your changes. I assume your goodwill to correct the article, however, my opinion of your changes is negative. If more users oppose your changes will have to be rolled back. So far I am not creating a new thread in the article talk page... however, I recommend that you stop making changes this month. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Union - please stop stop making new changes this month, Other users should have time to learn about the new changes

Please stop stop making new changes this month, Other users should have time to learn about the new changes. If you do not start collaborating with other users on the talk page, if you do not want a consensus, your changes will be fully reverted and your behavior reported to the RfC. This is a last warning. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (third request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Energy Charter Treaty into Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

I don't know if English is your native language, but to apply the definite article "the" (as in "the European integration") implies that the subject is a real thing rather than a process or wish. Intentional or not, your edits are very close to WP:ADVOCACY for a United States of Europe. Your renaming of the Special Territories article was definitely a step too far. Wikipedia deals with what is, not what might be, could be or should be. See also WP:CRYSTAL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed move of "Special member state territories and the European Union", apparent WP:ADVOCACY, apparent WP:ADVOCACY]]. Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Micga. If you continue to edit Wikipedia while making no response to the ANI complaint, you are risking a block. Changes on Wikipedia need consensus. I notice you were blocked previously back in 2021. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at WP:ANI. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Comments such as a user of Armenian descent feels unashamed to remove Azerbaijan from the table are attacks on a users ethnicity / nationality, and are not appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:HandThatFeeds, that was not my intent at all. I do not have negative attitude towards any of the two ethnicities (not to mention the fact that I’ve got some Armenian friends but no Azerbaijani ones). The post was not about anyone’s ethnicity, its aim was rather to exemplify the fact that, along their reckless labeling and and mass-reverting contributions of other users as allegedly „undiscussed”, „POV” or WP:ADVOCACY without providing proper explanations, both Archives908 and JMF themselves at the same time smuggle in their contribs that match way more closely the very types of abuse they accuse other users of committing. The specific ethnicity itself is entirely irrelevant to me here, it could be substituted by any other nation involved in a conflict with another one.

Of note, neither of them have specified the justifications of their reverts as of when I write this reply, but have only stated general and vague motives instead, apparently considering themselves absolved from this duty. Judging by their talk pages, my assessment in regard to European integration and the related multi-speed Europe is that both users co-operated to take advantage of the havoc wreaked by User:77.11.87.107 through using it as a sort-of fog concealing their arbitrary reverts of my contributions, ostensibly citing the ensuing cleanup as a pretext for such behaviour which may best be described as utterly dishonest and cynical, given the fact that its actually them rarther than anybody else who initially supported, in effect encouraged and thus carry in part the blame for the disruptive behaviour of the abovementioned IP user, tolerating it as long as the latter targeted my contributions rather that those of Archives908 and JMF. Only after the IP proceeded in the end to wage an edit war also against both of these users, the result was a block. Micga (talk) 21:45, 10 November 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unification of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page County of Glatz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Prussia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page County of Glatz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Regional fishery body

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.fao.org/in-action/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems/background/regional-fishery-bodies/en, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NATO–Russia relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artsakh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

54 edits for this small expansion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vozhd&diff=1137151412&oldid=1136255842 -Vipz (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed moves

You should not be making massive moves and changes to top-level rail articles with no discussion or even any explanation whatsoever, such as this and this. You've created a mess that needs to be cleaned up. You should be first using the article talk pages to discuss such sweeping changes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User making major changes to rail articles without discussion. Thank you.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-Russian sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annexation of Crimea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You must respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User making major changes to rail articles without discussion before further editing. Otherwise you may be blocked. Editors must be able to communicate with others when problems are being discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Micga: I will indefinitely block you if there is evidence of a problem as outlined at the above ANI link. You have responded but then move on and issues seem to recur. That has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment dated 04:36, 10 March 2023 by PaulT2022. Do you think a further response from you is needed? Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied him on the article talk page.Micga (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment#Russophobia types? The issues raised by PaulT2022 concern sources yet your reply makes no mention of that. Another problem is revealed in your reply here. I think I have seen your mistakes in English before and language difficulties can explain why some contributors rarely engage in discussions. That is a serious problem when several editors claim there is significant disruption, as has occurred in the ANI report. You have to find a way to engage in discussion and convince others that your edits are good, or you have to avoid making edits that cause conflict. We will see if PaulT2022 finds the reply at Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the reply doesn't address sourcing concerns, @Johnuniq. I might add that in the context it also appears to advocate righting great wrongs (by implying that the reliable sources are wrong to define Russophobia as a dislike or fear of Russia). PaulT2022 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will elaborate more on that tomorrow (No time 2day due to on-call duty as MD)Micga (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I’ve just delivered in Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_types an extended, detailed set of citations.Micga (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Retreat (Russian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evacuation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of Wikipedia for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you from editing the mainspace due to the concerns raised at ANI about your edits. You seem intent on continuing without changing your behaviour, which is not an option. The concerns specifically were additions or changes not based on sources and lack of edit summaries (making it difficult for other editors to know what you changed or why), though there were also concerns about copying within Wikipedia and neutrality. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Communication is required, as your lack of communication is the main reason the issue escalated to the point of a block. To be unblocked, you will need to convince the community that you have addressed these concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a partial block and explicitly does not prevent you from using talk pages. You can continue to engage in discussions or propose edits on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same problem occurred at European Development Fund. I reverted it and explained why on Talk:European Development Fund. Ymnes (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Landkreis Glatz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Landkreis Glatz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24 § Landkreis Glatz until a consensus is reached. Crainsaw (talk) 07:01, 24 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]