User talk:Mundilfari

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jason Voorhees, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Jason Voorhees was changed by Mundilfari (u) (t) deleting 14382 characters on 2009-08-12T02:31:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Klondike bar constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing pop culture

While you may have some basis in removing this material, you would be well-served by discussing these removals on article talk pages and providing rather clear justifications in edit summaries for your actions. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please make use of talk pages before mass removing data. Freikorp (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagging

When you add a tag to an article, like the {{unencyclopedic}} tag you added to Pizza Hut, please provide and explanation regarding your concerns. Just tagging an article without a proper summary does not allow others to correct the issue. The tag has been removed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia,please do not tag articles without a reason which you did not on Smallville,The Dark Knight}}. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Notedgrant (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

You failed to use the correct templates and coding to nominated Tantive IV for deletion. Clean them up promptly to follow appropriate procedure, otherwise the (attempted) AfD will be speedy-closed (largely because it was never opened). --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the AFD on a procedural basis; as noted, there was never a completed AFD per WP:AFD, so no debate could take place. On point, you might want to bring your concerns to the article's talk page, as this particular article seems to be well-sourced, and an AFD would not be likely to succeed as a result. Always simpler to discuss issues first. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of trivia.

You seem to be misinterpreting WP:TRIVIA. Read this this. In addition, several of the trivia items you've been removing are actually sourced, which isn't exactly commonplace among trivia on Wikipedia. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and others feel that adding Simpsons, Family Guy and other TV Trivia to every single Wikipedia page is counterproductive and silly. This isn't encyclopedic. This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a medium. Call it what you like. I think it should be removed.Mundilfari (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart

Please note that I have reverted your edits in this article, which were unexplained deletions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch oven (practical joke)

It is not a redirect. If you want to nominate it for deletion please use the right process. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

When nominating articles for deletion...

It is considered polite to notify significant editors of the article. While it is by no means mandatory to do this I am sure you will understand that it is a valuable part of 'citizenship' here to do so. You omitted to do this with your nomination of Dutch oven (practical joke), so I have notified the article's creator using one of the templates referred to on that page.

Do note that using any other mechanism may be considered to be canvassing and questions may be asked. it is permitted to ask editors to comment provided that no hint of bias appears in the request and provided even handedness is demonstrable when notifying other editors.

If using aids such as Twinkle please be aware that they sometimes (often?) fail to complete their tasks, and it is incumbent on the editor using them to check that all has been completed correctly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Scarface 2: The Rise of Montana. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Please note that commentary related to the quality or content of the article does NOT belong in the article itself, but on the article's talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Dutch oven (practical joke)

I have reverted your edit to this article. Your history with it makes it hard for me to continue to assume good faith on your part where this article is concerned. You have conducted a campaign against it. I suggest that you devote your obvious considerable energies elsewhere. There are many other parts of Wikipedia and many other articles where your efforts would prove more fruitful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Klondike bar and to Dutch oven (practical joke), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. You seem to be back to your misunderstanding of WP:TRIVIA and your campaign to remove popular culture references form articles. Please stop. This is not a useful or welcome behaviour and you have been counselled against it before. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've received praise for removing what many people find to be a hugely embarrassing part of Wikipedia. Every article is now loosely associated with prime time television and adult cartoons. This is unacceptable. Many other people have concurred with this sentiment and thanked me for removing this fluff from Wikipedia. I will continue to do so, regardless of your wishes. I don't believe this constitutes vandalism and will take this up with administration if you continue this line of debate.Mundilfari (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you on my talk page. You mistake praise for consensus. Your edits appear to me to be part of a WP:POINT campaign. So carry out your promise and do that now, today. Raise the matter with whichever administration forum you see fit. You appear to be threatening me. Carry that threat out. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are at it again, it seems, with Dutch oven (practical joke). This is a WP:POINT campaign. Either build consensus for your acts whcih I perceive as vandalism, or give it up. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa edits

Hi Mundilfari, I noticed some of your constructive edits to Ottawa-related articles. In particular, I noticed your reworking of Rick Chiarelli. That page was extensively rewritten a few days ago by an IP editor, who added the advertisement-like section that you removed. Note that I reverted the page to a version before the IP's revision and your edit. Feel free to take another look at that page and improve it if you can.

Furthermore, if you are interested in Ottawa-related articles, I invite you to take a look at WikiProject Ottawa. That project provides good organisation of all Ottawa-related articles, and its talk page is a good place to get the attention of other interested editors. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jane Scharf

The article Jane Scharf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Questionable whether this person meets WP:BIO.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Pop Culture Sections

Please, do not remove such sections as you have done at Wrangel Island. I appreciate, and in the main agree with, your statement that WP does not need every family guy reference remarked upon, however, your deletion of the popular culture section on the Wrangel Island is completely different, and there is no reason why reference should not be made that Wrangel Island is feature in a notable work of literature written by a very notable author.

Please, as you have been asked above review WP:Trivia. This page makes it clear that there is no guideline that states that popular culture sections are forbidden, merely that lists of trivia should be avoided. This section is not a list of trivia. Firstly, WP:TRIVIA specifically states that you should not simply delete these sections, but try to add the information to the normal article (if necessary, which in this instance it is not as the information is already presented in a format suitable for Wikipedia) or if you feel it must go then to discuss this on the talk page prior to deletion.

Wikipedia, as I am sure you are aware is governed by consensus. Simply because you feel a pop culture section is inappropriate does not make it so (despite your comments above re Removal of Trivia). Please discuss any future deletions of such sections on the talk page of the article, you never, consensus might be that it is appropriate.

Furthermore, your edit summary is massively unhelpful. Simply putting "no" as your edit summary is utterly inappropriate. Even if you do feel yourself to be a self appointed arbiter of WP:TRIVIA, who has no need for consensus, you still need to state your reasons. What you have done is in my opinion, is only one level above a vandal blanking a page, in the sense that you have removed potentially perfectly valid information with no clue as to why. Personally I would undo any edit like this with such a flippant edit summary by you or any other editor as a matter of principle, for the very reasons discussed above. I note you have also been requested to provide more detailed edit summaries on several occasions as well. Please re-read what others have written above and consider whether your actions are in keeping with what is expected from a courteous WP editor. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of pop culture section from Queen's University

You removed a pop culture section from Queen's University. Your explanation "not needed" does not justify its removal. These types of removals should be discussed in the article's talk page and consensus obtained. Even though, personally, I am not a fan of such inclusions, pop culture sections are not prohibited. BC _{talk to me} 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of more popular culture sections

I have recently reverted a number of deletions you have made to articles involving the removal of their pop culture sections. Again I remind you that you are required to discuss this on the relevant articles talk page as per WP:TRIVIA. I agree with you that certain elements of those sections are probably not entirely suitable (such as the Larry King Live section you removed, where a number of the items noted seem to refer more to Larry King than the show itself). However, you do not get around this by simply deleting the whole section. I note you continue to be warned by other editors about your refusal to follow guidelines and your refusal to obtain consensus before making significant changes to articles. I also note that you continue to be warned about this and reminded of proper conduct by other editors. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume that your edits are being performed in good faith. If you continue to delete sections in articles without both attempting to discuss your proposed changes on the relevant talk page to achieve consensus and without providing a detailed edit summary explaining why you have made the change (a simple "no" or "not necessary" is not acceptable), I feel it will be necessary to bring your actions to the attention of an admin. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your second attempt at the removal of pop culture section from Queen's University

You once again removed the pop culture section from Queen's University. This is not a trivia/miscellaneous section; it is a section that is permitted under WP guidelines. And even it were a trivia section, editors should try to incorporate the "trivia" into the body of the article, not just remove it without discussion. See WP:TRIVIA. Consensus should be obtained before an entire section is removed. Your actions may eventually be construed as vandalism, and you could be blocked from editing.-- BC _{talk to me} 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will see above that I warned this editor for vandalism and received a veiled threat in response. There is, I think, sufficient independent evidence now to make a case for some form of administrative intervention. I think we should consider this to be a final warning and consider a request for administrators to monitor this editor's long term behaviour with a view to making a decision. The behaviour is very much WP:POINT based, is outside consensus, and is highly aggravating and not a little disruptive.

I consider every removal by this editor of similar material without consensus to be an act of vandalism. Others may disagree. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of sections of articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It seems that there are a number of editors who disagree with your deletions and have reverted them on numerous occasions. As you are completely unwilling even to acknowledge that people wish to discuss the matter, I have felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of the admins. You can find the discussion here. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA

Hello there, I have been reviewing some of your recent trivia removals. Namely [1] [2] [3] [4]. I have a couple of comments to make. Firstly, I feel that some of the content of the trivia sections at Larry King Live could have been transplanted into the prose when the section was removed, however you have not done so. Also, Live with Regis and Kelly - this was not a trivia section but a list of parodies, most likely with useful content that can be moved into the prose. The Xhosa one I agree with. Queen's University - could have been changed into prose. Don't let the fact that it is in a series of bullet points convince you that there is nothing useful to be had.

Furthermore, I have filtered your edits for user talk and article talk edits, and find very, very few. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and this suggests that you aren't engaging with other users who take issue with your edits. This is bad. If you continue wholesale removal of content without reviewing the merits of some of it, then you are taking WP:TRIVIA to an extreme which is unlikely to be stomached by the community as a whole. It'd going to lead to restrictions on your editing rights, you know how admins like to do that! Let's not see that happen, right? SGGH ^ping! 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prunes - Pop Culture

Hi, I have taken the liberty of removing several references in the pop culture section, as I do not believe that they themselves are noteworthy. They seem to me to be simply off-hand references to prunes in a single episode, and don't really have any bearing on the series as a whole (and are effectively just one-off jokes).

However, you continue to remove the whole section, without discussion and with a rationale in the edit summary that doesn't discuss all elements within the section. I believe that the reference to Dr Pepper, is notable, especially as it is referenced to a Snopes article. I am quite happy to enter into discussion about the notability of such a reference, but would prefer if you could do it on the talk page rather than simply deleting whole sections.

If you had bothered to read my edit summaries you would see that I had already removed the Star Trek references. Your deletion of the section also involved the deletion of a referenced, and what I would believe notable, mention of an urban legend connected with prunes. Please read others edit summaries and review the changes before simply clicking undo in future.

I do not wish to get into a fight about this, but I must reiterate what has been said before: you have been asked on several times, by several different editors not to simply delete pop culture sections, because you have not entered into any discussion about the deletion and have then ignored attempts to discuss after the deletion. This got to the point that it was necessary to have an admin formally make comment. Whilst I agree, that most of the star trek refs are fancruft, you seem to be continuing to delete perfectly valid elements of articles, simply because they fall under the heading "pop culture".

If you continue to delete sections which contain at least some valid information wholesale and without discussion, I will have to raise the issue at the admin noticeboard again. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wonder Bread. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You are still, despite many requests and warnings, conducting your WP:POINT campaign to remove sections without building any consensus first. I have asked the admin who left you a message previously to take a further look at your actions. You are leaving a large messy trail behind you and you must stop this disruptive behaviour. I have purpose;y left this as a level 1 warning in order for admin(s) to take a view. I note that you have made some sort of threat to me previously, and remind you that such behaviour is also not tolerated if it happens again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture (again)

You did this on May 20, I told you not to do it without discussing it with people. A couple of weeks later you did it again, and you have been edit warring. Yet you have not made a user talk edit since March 2, no talk edit since June 18 and that was about a source. You can't build consensus or discuss changes with edit summaries, because that requires you to have already made an edit! Yes, many of the popular culture content you removed failed WP:TRIVIA, but not all of it did and you remove sections wholesale. You removed all the entries at Prune, but the Dr Pepper one was referenced. Did you go to Dr Pepper and see if it could be included there? Apparently not. WP:TRIVIA tags read "Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles" - are you even considering this? I warned you before that continuing to act in this blaze manner is going to get you blocked, and I reiterate this warning to you. Other edits are going to have less patience than I. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are adding unreferenced trivia, like at Wonder Bread? What's your game? I urge you to start replying at the ANI thread or users are going to decide you are being disruptive and may block you. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guilty before being proven innocent?Mundilfari (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further referral to the admin noticeboard for deletion of article sections without consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Café au lait. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. This appears to be a reverse image of your WP:POINT behaviour, and is pointed nonetheless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Wonder Bread. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a further example of disruptive and WP:POINT editing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing amounts to wikistalking (wikihounding). Stop. It is against the rules to arbitrarily follow someone's edits such as you have done. I will be notifying the wikipedia administration shortly.Mundilfari (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carry out that threat. Do it now. I will continue to follow your edits, will continue to revert what I perceive as your vandalism, and will continue to warn you and to report you and to discuss your behaviour in relevant places in order to bring your disruptive edits to a close. Making your report is likely to hasten administrative actions against you, so I encourage you to do that at once. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on guys, let's try to keep this civil, it might be in everybodies interest if all comments relating to this discussion were carried out in the ANI thread, so everyone can see with ease! Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly civil. This user has threatened me in this peculiar way before. He needs to be called on his bluff and bluster. I have called him pn it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a proposal for a topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Since this affects you I suggest that you register what I assume will be your opposition to it there. The proposal is simply that, a proposal. You have as much right as any editor to make representations there. I hope that you take this opportunity do do so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Dutch oven (practical joke), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This proves that your behaviour is pointed. This final warning is not to be ignored. A Topic Ban has been proposed against you already. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted perhaps a dozen of your vandalism edits

You are obviously seeking a lengthy block. A report has been made and I very much hope that will be the end of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you be, you know counting toothpicks, watching Wapner or spotting trains?Mundilfari (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Because of vandalism, such as such as this and this I blocked you from editing. I then discovered a discussion about you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and lifted the block while discussion takes place. However, the only reason for lifting the block is that I prefer to see consensus for action, rather than acting unilaterally. Please stop your disruption, or you will be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you violated WP:3RR. I would take this block time to reevaluate your editing practices, if you want some friendly advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Des[pite a block being technically justified, I am glad that you (JamesBWatson) first blocked and then lifted the block. I very much hope that this user participates in the discussion. However I feel that any further disruption should result in an immediate block to curtail the huge quantity of vandalism that can be performed in a remarkably short time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care to engage in the kangaroo court which is Wikipedia disciplinarian system. But I will ask this, is Fiddle Faddle going to be blocked for edit warring? If this system you speak of is fair then he should be blocked as well. He has been wikistalking me ever since I first made an edit to dutch oven (practical joke). This apparently set him off and he reverted anything I did from this point forward. My edit, right or wrong, still led to wikihounding even when I compromised and didn't remove full sections of 'in popular culture' but trimmed them nicely into one or two sentences which basically explained that there were many references to X in pop culture and then listed a few of these. This was still not good enough for Fiddle Faddle.Mundilfari (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will let my contributions record speak for itself. I view your behaviour as increasingly disruptive. Your failure to consider reaching consensus is deplorable, and you are proving, at least to me, that, unless you curb your tendency to fail to interact with other editors and to build and work within consensus, your many talents would be better deployed elsewhere. Your flurry of vandalism, conducted in what appeared to me to be a fit of pique, shows me that you do not have the good of the community at heart. It has rules that it has created by consensus. By editing here you accept those rules implicitly. Changing the rules if you disagree with them is a process, not a one man stand.

You keep calling my ethics into question. I challenge you to make a formal allegation and back it with facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban/editing restriction

As a result of a discussion on the AN/I noticeboard -- see [5] for details -- you are banned from editing areas of articles that contain what may be reasonably classified as trivia, which includes sections headed Trivia, (In) Popular Culture or sections named or unnamed which a reasonable editor might construe as falling into that category. This does not include the existence, addition or deletion of items where consensus is reached and the work is performed by other editors. You may apply to have this decision reviewed not earlier than one month from today (15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)) and not more frequently than once per month thereafter. This decision has been entered at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If you have any questions about this decision, feel free to contact me or another administrator at your convenience. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of one week, for For editing in violation of a topic ban, here.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already realized, violation of the above topic ban/editing restriction makes you subject to being blocked from editing. The week's block imposed above will increase in duration with subsequent infringements and, at the discretion of any administrator, can result in your being banned from any future contribution to Wikipedia under any circumstances. I have just amended the editing restrictions to make this explicit. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me or another administrator at your convenience. Accounting4Taste:talk 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe this...

I am pleased to see you back. You have so much passion it would have been a dreadful shame if it had gone to waste. I'm glad you have not let the immediately past episode discourage you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I don't believe you.Mundilfari (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.65.32.41 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this particular article in an IRC chat room. I by no means encouraged anyone to edit the article but pointed out the ridiculousness of the article and that it was a case for wikigroaning. If other users took it into their hands to edit this article as I did, I will not take responsibility.Mundilfari (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would officially like this case to be re-opened and appeal the decision of a one year block. Simply talking about a case in a public chat room should not be reason to be blocked. Others obviously feel as strongly as I do about the ridiculousness of that article. Fiddle Faddle is obviously as strongly opposed to the article being edited. Yes, there are other people who think you're wrong.Mundilfari (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mundilfari for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]