User talk:Hayal12
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Hayal12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing 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
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hayal12, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Hayal12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC) |
Doctor Zhivago
[edit]Hello Hayal12, you recently restored some of your edits to Doctor Zhivago (film) that I had previously removed. I have listed the issues I have with your edits at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film)#Recent_edits. Please do not restore your edits again without first addressing my points at the discussion; repeatedly restoring opposed edits is classified as WP:EDITWARRING, and if wish to add content to an article that is challenged you need to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for those edits. I see you are a new editor so please feel free to contact me at my talk page if you wish to query anything else. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop restoring your edits to the article and address my concerns at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film)#Recent_edits. The edits you keep restoring contain numerous manual of style violations and misrepresent some of the financial data regarding the film. While I welcome your commitment to the article and on the whole your edits have helped improve the critical reception section the constant reverting without engaging in discussion is problematic. Per WP:BRD you need to engage in discussion and address the problems. If you do not I will have no choice but to engage an administrator to deal with the situation. I don't want to do that because you clearly want to improve the article but I will if you leave me with no choice. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Column splitting
[edit]On another note, I have noticed on several articles you have removed the column splitting template, such as Arthur Kennedy, Jack Hawkins. As I explained in point #4 at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film)#Recent_edits this is not particularly helpful: readers access Wikipedia on a whole range of resolutions, and on large displays single columns leave large amounts of whitespace to the right. Not only is this aesthetically poor, it also causes needless scrolling so it is economical for displays to "split" the columns when they are large enough. The number of columns can be set dynamically using {{div col||30em}} as seen here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Despite my request to not remove column splitting you have done so once again removed them at The Madness of King George. As I have already explained readers access Wikipedia on a range of resolutions and the number of columns should be set dynamically by the reader's browser. If you continue removing this feature from articles I will raise the issue with an administrator. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Once again you have removed column splitting at Sophie's Choice (reverted by MarnetteD) and at Kind Hearts and Coronets (reverted by me). It has been explained twice to you already why column splitting is used in cast sections in these articles, and yet you continue doing it. You didn't respond at the Doctor Zhivago discussion I started and you have not responded here. Would you care to explain why you are removing the columnn splitting from such articles when it is a common feature, and why you believe it is better to impose a single-column style on a reader and override their browser settings? Betty Logan (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Betty Logan is correct about this. You have also removed them when editing logged out here and here. That can be considered as socking and is most certainly disruptive. Continuing on the path can lead to a block. MarnetteD|Talk 11:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm TheOldJacobite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Commitments (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Don't Look Now, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm AddWittyNameHere. I noticed that in this edit to Swing Time, you removed content without adequately 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. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
April 2017
[edit] Hello, I'm KNHaw. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Deer Hunter without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KNHaw (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Red Shoes (1948 film), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at British New Wave. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Richard Lester.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Final Warning
[edit]Hayal12, editors have been trying to discuss some of your edits with you for several months now. They have especially asked that you discuss those edits which are contrary to standard Wikipedia practice. Despite their requests and explanations, you have failed to communicate with them at all. Please note that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia. Persistent refusal to communicate or to discuss edits is considered Disruptive and will result in being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Please respond here. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]I have blocked you for one month for making a large number of disruptive edits without logging in to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
[edit] Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Vertigo (film), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have just reverted your edits at The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps (1935 film) because they follow the same problematic pattern that you were recently blocked for. You either have to stop making edits of these nature or engage in dicussion about them, otherwise you will end up permanently block from editing Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)- Hayal12, you have received numerous good-faith requests during the past year to discuss those of your edits which contradict consensus. But you have never bothered to enter into a discussion here or on any talk page. And you were warned that failure to collaborate with other editors would result in a block from editing. Despite this, you came back from a recent 1-month evasion block and returned to the same disruptive editing behavior. I have indefinitely blocked you from editing unless you can provide assurance that you will communicate and collaborate with fellow Wikipedia editors. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hayal12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I fail to see how any of my edits since the month-long ban was dropped can be construed in any way as "disruptive". I occasionally remove column splitting when there is a sufficiently small number of items on the list to render splitting unnecessary and not improving the quality of the article. I would be grateful if this unprovoked and seemingly spiteful block could be dropped.
Decline reason:
It seems you were aware of the column splitting issue. Since all your edits to that effect were reverted, people obviously disagree with your assessment of what's improving the quality of the article and what isn't. Huon (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
Hayal12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Also, no date has been set for the expiry of the block, which I find only adds to my growing feeling that Wikipedia is not the democratic organisation I believed it to be when I joined and seems to be a tool for people to control one another. As an inexperienced Wikipedia user, I have been a victim of officious, insensitive, exacting Wikipedia users who are determined to find fault with practically everything I do on this site. I find this highly unpleasant and would like it to stop. In future I would gladly discuss edits on the talk page, as it is only recently that I have learned how to contribute to it.
Decline reason:
It's interesting that someone who has been blocked for failure to communicate would complain about Wikipedia not being a democratic organization, which it is not. You've been given ample opportunity, to the point of near begging, to explain your edits and you have failed to do so. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and the block can be lifted if you demonstrate that you understand the reasons for the block and will contribute constructively in the future. I see nothing here that convinces me of that. Katietalk 13:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
Hayal12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have said I would be happy in future to discuss my edits, and I have also said that I am an inexperienced Wikipedia user but you cannot hold this against me as I am now able to contribute to my talk page. I understand that the reason I was blocked was because people saw it fit to find fault with the (relatively minor in my opinion) changes I made.
Decline reason:
No, "because people saw it fit to find fault with the (relatively minor in my opinion) changes I made", is not the reason you were blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
{unblock|Very well then, I understand that the reason I was blocked was because I made a few too many disruptive edits and failed to communicate about them on the talk page.}
{unblock|I think this shows I fully properly understand the reasons for my being blocked, and since I have clearly now shown my ability to communicate with other users, I may be permitted to rejoin Wikipedia.}
Hayal12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
By both ignoring me and failing to set an expiry date for my block you are choosing not to acknowledge my admittance of my errors which goes against the purpose of the block entirely, which is to make me come to some recognition of the reasons for my being blocked.
Decline reason:
As below, please consider applying under the WP:SO. This requires no edits for at least six months. If you are caught evading your block in the meanwhile, you would not be eligible under the standard offer. Yamla (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
- I recommened that you pursue the WP:Standard Offer in six months time, and if you choose to return to Wikipedia bear in mind it is a collaborative project and that WP:Communication is required. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- That seems unreasonable, seeing as I was only blocked for a month previously and the behaviour which prompted that block was, if anything, more troublesome than that which prompted this one.
Hayal12, this is to acknowledge the receipt of your two recent e-mails. The current status of your block, as mentioned above, is for you to avoid editing of Wikipedia for a period of six months. After which the WP:Standard Offer will be available, and you can apply for reinstatement through the WP:Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that this was a consensus among several administrators and editors. However, I do appreciate your recent communication and request at reconciliation; and will take that under consideration during the next week or so -- in consultation with the others involved. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hayal12, In light of your recent communication with me, I have restored your talk page access. If you wish, you can post another unblock request using your email statement. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Upon its initial release, Doctor Zhivago was criticized for its romanticization of the revolution.[1] Bosley Crowther of the New York Times felt that the film's focus on the love story between Zhivago and Lara trivialized the events of the Russian Revolution and the resulting civil war, but was impressed by the film's visuals.[2]
Also critical of the film was The Guardian's Richard Roud, who wrote: "In the film the revolution is reduced to a series of rather annoying occurrences; getting firewood, finding a seat on a train, and a lot of nasty proles being tiresome. Whatever one thinks of the Russian Revolution it was certainly more than a series of consumer problems. At least it was to Zhivago himself. The whole point of the book was that even though Zhivago disapproved of the course the revolution took, he had approved of it in principle. Had he not, there would have been no tragedy".[3] In a positive review, Time Magazine called the film "Literate, old-fashioned, soul-filling and thoroughly romantic".[4]
Reviewing it for its 30th anniversary, film critic Roger Ebert regarded it as "an example of superb old-style craftsmanship at the service of a soppy romantic vision", and wrote that "the story, especially as it has been simplified by Lean and his screenwriter, Robert Bolt, seems political in the same sense Gone With the Wind is political, as spectacle and backdrop, without ideology", concluding that the political content is treated mostly as a "sideshow".[1] Geoffrey Macnab of The Independent reviewed the film for its 50th anniversary and noted director David Lean's "extraordinary artistry" but found the film bordering on "kitsch". Macnab also felt that the musical score by Maurice Jarre still stood up but criticised the English accents.[5]
Generally, however, the film has come to be viewed in a more positive light than at the time of its release. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" score of 82%, with an average rating of 7.5/10, based on 44 reviews; the critical consensus reads: "It may not be the best of David Lean's epics, but Dr. Zhivago is still brilliantly photographed and sweepingly romantic."[6]
Peter Bradshaw, reviewing the film for The Guardian, also for its 50th anniversary re-release, gave the film five stars and claimed that: "Zhivago conjures grand romance and a gigantic, almost panoptic vision of the Russian landscape; Lean and Bolt pay tribute to a Tolstoyan ambition in Pasternak’s samizdat novel, and also to a real contemporary relevance: the story of a suppressed writer."[7] In another five-star review, David Parkinson of Radio Times wrote that "this adaptation of Boris Pasternak's classic novel has all the sweep and stateliness that characterised David Lean's mastery of the epic."[8]
References
- ^ a b Ebert, Roger (April 17, 1995). "Doctor Zhivago". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
- ^ Crowther, Bosley (23 December 1965). "Movie Review, Doctor Zhivago (1965)". The New York Times.
...has reduced the vast upheaval of the Russian Revolution to the banalities of a doomed romance.
- ^ Roud, Richard (29 April 1966). "Doctor Zhivago review – archive". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
- ^ "Cinema: To Russia with Love". Time Magazine. 31 December 1965. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
- ^ Macnab, Geoffrey (26 November 2016). "Doctor Zhivago, film review: David Lean's epic romance celebrates 50th anniversary". Retrieved 30 August 2016.
- ^ "Doctor Zhivago (1965)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
- ^ "Doctor Zhivago review – vehement storytelling still conjures great romance". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
- ^ "Doctor Zhivago - review". Radio Times. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
Hayal12 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)hayal12
Hayal12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Wiki users, I have been reconsidering the reasons for my having been blocked and, for a while now, have understood that I my actions were inconsiderate and irresponsible. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise sincerely for any inconvenience and annoyance I have caused. I would like to make it clear that, aside for my failure to communicate, I have really enjoyed being able to use Wikipedia and see it as a space for me to contribute, improve and build upon information while retaining a comfortable amount of anonymity. While I realise that I need to work on my communication skills within the site, I would in better circumstances be sure to act in accordance with my fellow Wiki users, motioning my edits beforehand on the talk pages to reach a consensus, and not try to deliberately cause confusion or annoyance. Furthermore, I honestly believe I have the ability to contribute to, expand and improve the quality of articles in a way that will merit the approval of my fellow users. I do hope you take into consideration what I have said and I would be extremely grateful if you would review your previous decision. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Hayal12
Accept reason:
Hayal12, I appreciate the articulate message and accept your request for a return to editing Wikipedia. Because much of conflict was exasperated by the column splitting, I suggest that you refrain from edits involving column splitting during the next few months. Please remember that there are many editors on article and project talk pages who will happily discuss any issues with you. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Hayal12. I have removed the vandalism template dropped on your page by User:Banner. It was an inappropriate action on their part, as was their blanket rollback of your edit at Ryan's Daughter without any explanation. Your edit was factually correct: the Country listing in the infobox should certainly be United Kingdom as defined by BFI and Variety magazine. And given that the adjective "British" is commonly used to refer to matters relating to the United Kingdom, a film produced by the United Kingdom can be defined as British. Should there be any further problems with reversions like this, please remember to address them with edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks — CactusWriter (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Dear CactusWriter, Thank you for doing that; it is much appreciated. Hayal12 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Hayal12
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Hayal12. 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)
December 2017
[edit] Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Last Emperor. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You also violated WP:FILMPLOT. Given your rather checkered history it's hard for me to assume good faith here. You were blocked previously, so it seems reasonable to believe that you would exercise a bit more care in your editing conduct. DonIago (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 6
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Draughtsman's Contract, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Fraser (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) 09:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
[edit] Please do not add or change content, as you did at Giant (1956 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You have been warned numerous times on this, please stop now. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Giant (1956 film), you may be blocked from editing. This is the second time you have been warned on exactly the same change. Please stop now. David J Johnson (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
October
[edit] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doctor Zhivago (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 18:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Hayal12. 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)
Disambiguation link notification for November 23
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musical film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | 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 |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
February 2021
[edit] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 25
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exodus (1960 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epic. 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) 06:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
January 2022
[edit] Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Schindler's List, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
February 2023
[edit] 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. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit] Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Lawrence of Arabia (film), you may be blocked from editing. Do not remove or change sourced information without providing a source that will support your changes. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)