StarchildSF

Welcome!

Hello, StarchildSF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Gun control. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I had previously had an account a while back under a different user name, which I'd forgotten about and then rediscovered last year while hanging out with a friend who's better versed in using Wikipedia. She helped me leave a question about reconciling these account names, or something to that effect. The editor below apparently responded to this question ("You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy"), but when I go to that page, I can find nothing about me or my question. I don't recall specifically what the question was, or where it was posted, in order to look for it. I only tend to used the site fairly infrequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF (talk • contribs)

The discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 20#Accidentally created duplicate accounts. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, StarchildSF. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy.
Message added 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2014

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Timeline of the 2014 Ferguson unrest  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed notice due to adequate explanation of edit. I have restored your edit. With this type of controversial article, someone else might make a similar or further edit. In that event, you may need to leave a message for them. Thank you for your explanation. Donner60 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:LP-Porcupine-Button.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LP-Porcupine-Button.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

Please review the Wikipedia Reliable Sources guidelines. ZeroHedge is not a reliable source [in the writer's opinion -Starchild] because it is an entirely-anonymous blog [actually it's not entirely anonymous -Starchild] without an identifiable editorial structure and without a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, etc. Therefore, it should not be used as a source. If you want to discuss the percentage of public land in Nevada, there's undoubtedly many better sources for that data [sounds like an acknowledgement that the fact is valid, and that its removal is simply being justified by a technicality -Starchild] — and besides, it's a detail that doesn't belong in the article lede anyway.

The lede should be a brief summary of the article; extensive discussion of federal public land laws in the article (if any) belong in the body text. While it is true that some people have argued that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority over public land, those claims have been rejected in court [as if the *opinions* of government court officials are more valid than those of anyone else -Starchild] literally every single time they've been litigated - and Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as some people may wish it to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If you object to a source, why not just delete that source, not the entire discussion? The article as written is badly biased in favor of the Feds by making the Bundys sound like simple scofflaws who do not have any legal justification for their actions. The fact of multiple state legislatures effectively agreeing with their position should be included in the lede of the article. Starchild (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I did just delete that single source, and then moved the discussion of the legal argument to a separate section and shortened it. The fact of the matter is that a few state legislatures briefly argued something 20 years ago, but literally every single federal court in the country has ruled otherwise. If you want to have an extensive discussion of something, it belongs in the body text of the article, not the lede. The lede of the article is meant to be a brief discussion of the major points, not a detailed point-by-point argument.

Moreover, the article is not biased, it is giving due weight to each argument in accordance with its prominence in reliable sources. The fact of the matter is that Bundy's legal claims have been rejected in court over and over again. His position is a fringe theory that is not supported in law [that depends to which law you are referring – the Constitution, the supreme law in the United States, does not recognize federal land ownership outside of the District of Columbia except for lands needed for military forts, arsenals, and the like -Starchild]. We do not give "equal time" to all arguments. If we even mention Bundy's claim, we are required to mention that it is unfounded in law and rejected by all courts and the vast majority of legal scholars. So if we were to include your quote from one (unnamed?) legal scholar, we would have to add the extensive, easily-found rebuttals of that quote from dozens of other legal scholars and actual federal judges who have ruled in actual federal cases specifically rejecting that scholar. Then the lede would be monstrously long and unwieldy - exactly what we should be avoiding. If you think we need a section in the article body discussing the federal land arguments, then that is a different story. We could expand the section I moved your sources to - Bundy standoff#Claim of states' rights. That would be the appropriate place to have a lengthy point-by-point argument, I suppose, if we need one here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As evidence of the article's bias, I note the inclusion in the lede of a paragraph about Bundy's racist remark that slavery would have been better for blacks than federal dependency, which had nothing to do with the article topic (and certainly was not relevant as part of a "brief summary of the article" as you say the lede should be). I moved it to a different section, although arguably it isn't relevant to the article at all. Starchild (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

DS Alert US Politics post 1932

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, StarchildSF. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Taiwan independence movement

References to "China"

Hello. I have noticed that you changed many mentions of "China" to "Beijing regime" or "PRC". In fact, the article originally refers to Beijing/PRC as "China" because the PRC is a member of the United Nations, representing the seat of "China", whereas the ROC is not a member of the United Nations and doesn't represent any seats. The ROC isn't even considered to be a "non-member state" by the United Nations but is rather considered to be a "non-existent state" or an "illegal state". This is because the United Nations recognises Taiwan as being part of China, a state which already has a seat in the United Nations, and hence is unable to recognise any other state, whether a member or non-member, as being sovereign over Taiwan. With this being said, it stands to reason that Beijing/PRC should be primarily referred to as "China" on Wikipedia, at least according to the standards of other articles which seem to follow United Nations recognition. I would prefer to refer to the ROC as "ROC", but the Wikipedia article for that state is titled "Taiwan" and refers to the state repeatedly as "Taiwan". Hence, I use the terms "China (PRC)" in reference to the Beijing regime and "Taiwan (ROC)" in reference to the Taipei regime.

If it turns out that Wikipedia does not follow United Nations recognition, then I will gladly comply with the usage of the terms "Beijing regime" and "Taipei regime" [I did not use and do not support the term "Taipei regime", because the government based in Taipei, unlike the one based in Beijing, is democratically elected and thus has a greater degree of legitimacy, a distinction that should be recognized in the language -Starchild (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)]. However, in this case, I would also agree to change many other things. For example, the PRC is usually referred to as a "country" whereas the ROC is usually referred to as a "state". If Wikipedia does not follow United Nations recognition, then the usage of these terms is incorrect. Instead, both the PRC and ROC should be referred to as "countries" or "states" of equal status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

United Nations policies vs reality

I'm not sure whether Wikipedia's policy is to take its cue on names from the United Nations or not, but the rulers in Beijing are unelected by the Chinese people and therefore illegitimate. That's why I refer to their organization as a "regime".

Taiwan has leaders who have been elected in elections generally seen as free and fair, which is why I would refer to their organization as a "government".

The fact that the United Nations chooses as an organization to recognize the less-legitimate rulers over the more-legitimate ones should bring their credibility in such matters into serious disrepute.

In neither case however do I think those who happen to hold political power in a particular jurisdiction should be confused with the people who happen to reside in that jurisdiction, or with the jurisdiction as a whole entity. China is not its rulers, nor do its rulers truly represent the Chinese people. Starchild (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)StarchildSF

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

I followed Wikipedia's directions to upload them citing fair use on the grounds that these two individuals are public figures and candidates for public office.Starchild (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:John Monds.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:John Monds.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 05:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Kim Ruff.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Kim Ruff.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 05:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Libertarian National Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starchild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1RR notification

FYI, Boogaloo movement is under a 1RR restriction, and you have "used" your revert [actually I did NOT revert anyone else's edit on the article - it was my edits that were reverted multiple times; maybe that is why the word "used" appears in quotes here! Starchild (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)]further reverts will result in a block. It's time for you to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page and attempt to gain consensus [as if there were a consensus that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not leftist! My addition of the word "leftist" to describe the SPLC was reverted, even though that is a less extreme description than the term "far-right" repeatedly used in the article to describe the Boogaloo movement.] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a shot on reducing the bias of the Boogaloo movement entry. The use of the term far-right to describe the movement is indeed inappropriate. Hope to see you on the talk page joining the effort to improve the quality of the page. Terjen (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored many of your constructive edits to the Boogaloo movement entry. Your contributions to the page is appreciated. Terjen (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Firefangledfeathers 16:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dr." as an honorific

is generally avoided. See MOS:DOCTOR. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see you were informed of this guideline more than a year ago, yet you continue to add Dr. as an appeal to authority when the subject makes false or controversial claims. Please don’t do it again. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The claims were not false, but otherwise, point noted. No doubt you would have sent me the same note, in the same tone, if I'd added "Dr." to the name of someone making a claim you agreed with. Starchild (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on John Clauser

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page John Clauser, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

External URLs

Hi, I noticed that in some of your edits you include an external URL in the body of the article. (Example) URLs should only be inside <ref></ref> tags (when citing as a source) or in an External links section at the end of the article. Please avoid adding them to the text in the future, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

CT alert for climate change

You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:DontTreadOnAnyone-Procupine-Flag.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:DontTreadOnAnyone-Procupine-Flag.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:StarchildSF. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Doug, you appear to be assuming I was being sarcastic in my response to Viriditas, i.e. you are not assuming good faith in your note to me as an editor. Please remember to do so in the future. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Thank you. Starchild (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@StarchildSF It looks sarcastic. Quacks like a duck.... - good faith is not a suicide pact. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as the user to whom I was responding to looks biased. If you're going to reprimand people, please make sure you're being consistent. Starchild (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by saying they look biased, but this isn't about bias but good faith. Doug Weller talk 06:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you do. Quacks like a duck... As you said, good faith is not a suicide pact. Starchild (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Weird. Why reply to something well over 2 months old? In any case, I stand by what I said. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not? No time limit. I stand by what I said as well. If you think the conversation is too dated, you are under no obligation to reply. Starchild (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Libertarian Party (Argentina). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to The Daily Sceptic. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If people wouldn't put such biased material into these articles in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem. Starchild (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did at Guus Berkhout, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)