User talk:Ranze/2014

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MWA World Heavyweight Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Steele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haganai episodes numbering

Regarding the numbering on List of Haganai episodes, you can opt to include that as 13th episode and renumber them as they are labelled as such on Funimation's website. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mega Man Star Force (anime), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockman.EXE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minion War

The article Minion War has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

So, a game producer makes a link between two or more of its own series, thereby luring customers from one to the other and increasing profits. And this "event" is notable because...? Fails WP:N, hasn't received significant attention in reliable, independent sources (only in Palladium sources and in game fora, blogs and the like).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minion War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minion War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minion War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Collin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeffrey Kaplan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Super Dimension (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

Please see WP:Hatnote for proper formatting. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WordGirl

Hello, Ranze. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your contributed article, Planet of the Apes (film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Planet of the Apes (film). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Planet of the Apes. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Planet of the Apes – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Majokko Daisakusen: Little Witching Mischiefs

The article Majokko Daisakusen: Little Witching Mischiefs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of notability - note that is not the same as existence.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 00:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is regarding Zoe Quinn and Gamergate controversy as well as Anita Sarkeesian. Dreadstar ☥ 00:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction question

copied from User_talk:Dreadstar#Sanctions I'm not clear on which sanctions are being imposed on Gamergate/Sarkeesian, is this clarified on one of the talk pages? Both are quite big so if so I dunno where to look. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 04:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn about it here: Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions. The specific ruling is here: WP:NEWBLPBAN, which says " any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace". This means the discretionary sanctions apply to the three articles I provided links for on your talk page, as well as their respective talk pages, and covers edits anywhere (including your own user pages and those of others). Dreadstar ☥ 04:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Please read WP:POINT. I'm pretty certain your most recent proposal at the talk page for video game culture violated it. You're already in controverisial territory - these GamerGate related issues get everyone riled up as it is. We don't need bad faith suggestions to debate upon on top of that. I'm advising you to tone it down, or you'll receive a block. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem was that your proposal was so bad, it was hard to be taken seriously. It was very poorly thought out, violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and was instantly and unanimously rejected. When you factor in how you've been arguing a lot, and not finding much support, over at the GamerGate article, and it's not hard to piece together that you were just making a bad argument to prove a point about not getting your way over there. Even now, your argument hinges more on "consistency with the GamerGate article" than, you know, actually making logical sense as a point on its own. Like you're trying to make a point about what's going on over there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of VGJ

A tag has been placed on VGJ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benoît, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Benoit. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently if you only visit Wikipedia every 2-3 days, you're too late to participate in a conversation like this. Luckily, more active editors have defended me and all the other users RyuL has falsely accused of being single-purpose. Some purposes just require more attention than others, and we may not have time to seek out other ongoing situations by the time we apply time to one. Ranze (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

That's disappointing, it needs the help. Ranze (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question about deletion: That may happen, but not for a long time, at least a year or more. If it should be inadvertently deleted earlier but is still needed, please contact the Mediation Committee to seek its restoration. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

I think it's telling that the agree/disagree vote appears to split exactly along the ideological lines represented by the parties involved. I also don't understand how anyone can think that outbursts like "stop fucking forum-shopping" are in any way appropriate there. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eucatastrophe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catastrophe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Futurama characters

Category:Lists of Futurama characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Green Squad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TVO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MELT

A tag has been placed on MELT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8chan (as a disambiguation page) is not needed

8chan is also the common name of the subject, per WP:COMMONNAME. The anime does not have an article and a precursory search doesn't designate any sources. However, you are free to create 8chan (anime) if you wish. One does not need to happen to spite the other. Tutelary (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 8chan

A tag has been placed on 8chan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tutelary (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8chan/∞chan title

Given that 99% of the attention in the near future is going to be related to 8chan.co/∞chan, I'm thinking that ∞chan should be moved back to 8chan. I've also got a feeling that there will be an AfD for the ∞chan article if there aren't a lot more substantive reliable sources provided soon.

Since the move is contested by Tutelary, any objections if I move the page back, at least pending WP:RM or AfD results? —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bold move in the first place, and WP:BRD should always be done for moves. Tutelary (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at ∞chan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Mike V • Talk 23:23, 22 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate 3RR, this edit was a single reversion of a clearly wrong edit where Tutelary added false information to the page. Am I being punished for saying ∞chan is not 4chan? Please link where I made 3 identical reversions please. Ranze (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Special:Diff/635013241, Special:Diff/635015906, Special:Diff/635022647, and Special:Diff/635024785. Note that WP:3RR doesn't require the reverts to be identical, just to the same page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Mike and Jack and any other reviewing admins, please read closely, those 4 edits are not all reverts, and I will explain about the diffs JMB linked to:

21:32 was not a revert, it was an addition of references
21:53 was 1 revert in response to Tutelary's revert
22:47 was not a revert, it was a rephrasing of a sentence that did not rollback any previous edit
23:06 was a 2nd revert in response to Tutelary, again, so Tutelary was reverting first and would have equal or more reverts than me. I only reverted twice, and the 2nd time was completely unrelated to the first and a removal of false information (the person called the page 4chan, I reverted it, a clearly valid edit like that should not be considered towards 3RR violations)

Now on the other hand, if you look at the person initiating the reversions who did NOT get banned:

While I only did 1 edit that was a 'revert', this user has done 5, yet they are not punished and I am being falsely accused of doing 4 reverts. Ranze (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

21:32 and 22:47 were both reverts, since they changed "8chan" to "∞chan" after another editor changed "∞chan" to "8chan". Also, Tutelary was in fact blocked as well, but that's completely irrelevant anyway. Given the nature of both the last request and this one, I'm inclined to believe that if unblocked, you'll immediately resume edit warring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (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.

@Jackmcbarn: I can agree to a 0RR for 48 hours too, I think 'infinitechan' (whoever added that) is a good compromise. I could even agree to moving it there for easier typing. I would appreciate if you would early-end the ban for me too now that I agree to that similar 2-day period.

I did not at the time perceive 21:32 as a 'revert'. Still having trouble, but I will read up on it. Changing something back does not seem like a revert if you add new evidence for why you are doing it, which I did by adding references. Only a blatent 'undo' seems like a revert to me. Also I believe Tutelary is misrepresenting the reverts done on that page by calling them vandalism, I do not think any of my edits counted as that. I do recall removing T's edit calling the page 4chan tho. Ranze (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of BJJ Practitioners

Ranze, I appreciate your help with the List of Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners, but why did you remove the entry on Matt Thornton? Just curious. If it was an accident, no big deal, it's been restored. Buddy23Lee (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "A Voice for Men". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning A Voice for Men, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Voice for Men, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	While we've had our disagreements, you are still an astounding editor in the aspects I've viewed. Tutelary (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grappling hold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Choke. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Little Prince (2010 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Ellis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]