User talk:Muirofsara

Add comments below

Muirofsara, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Muirofsara! 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 Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Canaanite Religion

was changed from BCE to BC in March, before then it had been BCE for over a decade. Please don't change it back to BC again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about? I can see from the history that you're just making up stuff! Are you trying to intimidate me or something? You Doug Weller made a revert on 2nd January while the article was in a BC state and had been for ages before that - and left it as BC afterwards. You should be so good as to return it to how I left it. Muirofsara (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about ignoring WP:CIVIL and [[WP:AgF|assume good faith. It was in a mixed state - don't tell me you missed the BCE? And more importantly, how could you miss the WP:LEAD which clearly says " early Bronze Age through the first centuries of the Common Era." That was added in March 2011. It's had BCE in it since, although some people have added AD dates, presumably not noticing the lead or the other BCE dates. You need to calm down and stop making personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the history and I see that it has been predominantly BC for the whole of the last 9 years. (Nothing of any significance happened in March.) Also I notice the the quote from the lead you state there was actually inserted by you and it is unsourced as well. It should probably be tagged or removed. I believe that you have judged articles in the past as having to stay as BCE articles because they have been predominantly BCE for a long time and cannot be held to be BC even though this is their starting format. This obviously applies in reverse to this article. I think it is best to transfer this to the talk page for the article.--Muirofsara (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important information

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

British?

Can you please explain why you are changing lots of articles to say "British" rather than "Scottish" or "English"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing how? If you are referring to a look through my editing history then you should have looked closer before jumping to conclusions. A great deal of my editing in this line is reverting unjustified POV alterations by other editors or anonymous IPs that make such changes, and in many cases almost always without an edit summary to explain the basis for the change. My edits have explanations so that should already be covered. I am not "changing" the articles, rather "changing them back".--Muirofsara (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muirofsara. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mevagiss. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]