User talk:Sparkle1

Welcome!

Hello, Sparkle1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Nicole Maines. 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 complete 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! JesseRafe (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --RaviC (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Bradford City A.F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hanson (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) 08:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Spa feature race

Sparkle1, could you please get a consensus before making edits such as this one? The regulations state that the race did not complete the minimum distance required for the result to be ruled valid. Therefore there was no result recorded. Your addition of a results table suggests that there was. Furthermore, the circumstances of the race being abandoned are detailed at length in the article, and the table you have added is largely blank. It has little encyclopaedic value. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

White privilege

There is an ongoing discussion on the white privilege page regarding it being a sociological concept. You may wish to participate. Keith Johnston (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank you for the notice, of this and previous discussions. I am though no longer interested in the quagmire that is the page and subject matter in question. Sparkle1 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

David Wagner

Hi Sparkle1, I have reverted your move of David Wagner (soccer). As I explained in the edit summary, this page has been the subject of more than one discussion and move war in the past. As such, this would clearly fall under the scope of being a controversial move and should first be discussed via requested moves as per WP:BEFOREMOVING. As per a longstanding consensus, we use the common name of the sport in the subject's country. As a former United States international, it has been agreed therefore that soccer is the correct description in this case. If you wish to debate that choice, please feel free to raise the issue at a requested move or WP:FOOTBALL if you wish. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You just hit your fourth revert at Nicole Maines. Please self revert or you will be blocked for violating WP:3RR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually you're at three reverts right now. Please stop edit warring to restore disputed content and get consensus for the inclusion of the material on the article talk page before restoring it. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is already for inclusion. User:JDDJS is trying to change consensus to have said information removed. I would hope you are being fair and even handed here and place the same information on User:JDDJS otherwise it looks like you are not fully abreast of what is going on. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As you have now admitted I have violated no rules I would like you to strike the first comment you made claiming I have made a fourth revert. User JDDJS is also at three reverts so I would hope that being fair and even-handed as an administrator should be you will be placing a similar warning to them. If not I will have to conclude you are not exercising the additional responsibilities given to you by the community of Wikipedia of an administrator in the spirit of Wikipedia. The page Wikipedia:Administrators in a nutshell states

dministrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute.

I draw your attention to the section on use the tools fairly. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you feel I've misused admin tools feel free to start a thread at WP:ANI, otherwise everything I have to say has already been said here, on my talk page, and on the corresponding article talk page. Not that you're listening. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, I am simply challenging you and pointing out you are not being even-handed by not including JDDJS in your actions above. I would have no problem at all if you had simply gone this individual and this individual have done three reverts. There is also the fact that this whole set of discussions is based on your inability to count correctly. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2020 England police, fire and crime commissioner elections

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2020 England police, fire and crime commissioner elections. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2020 England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2020 England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. John B123 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Police, fire and crime commissioner elections

A tag has been placed on Category:Police, fire and crime commissioner elections requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello, I'm YorkshireLad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2021 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council election have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. You claimed that the information you removed was "non-notable", but notability is used to determine whether a subject should have their own article, not whether a subject should be included in an article; see WP:NNC. If you want to remove a lot of well-sourced material from the article, I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 13:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The information fails on wider notability. Also cleaning up the main body of the article and claiming that is unconstructive is not viewing the entirety of the editing. There is no way to claim the edits are unconstructive. You may disagree with the edits, but that is a world away from the edits being unconstructive. I strongly suggest assuming good faith before making such claims as editing being unconstructive. such claims could be seem as a battleground mentality and not working in a collaborative manner to further the goals of Wikipeida. The burden is to demonstrate notability. Having a source does not automatically got over the burden of notability. Being reported in a local newspaper does not get over the burden. As for the Labour gentleman there will be no leader as he has stepped down. Also Leader of Wirral Liberal Democrats is not the same as the council leader. Se the disparity between Westminster leaders of political parties and the actual leaders of political parties. Local news papers are not "well-sourced" it appears to be "single-sourcing". Yes they are secondary sources but that does not get over the notability hurdle for these local politicians. Why is there wider notability of these individuals. That is what is missing here. That has not been established. Also the post itself does not have any notability or wider notability established. These positions are not the same as elected mayors or members of legislative bodies. Local Councillors and the associated posts are considered inherently non-notable unless this is demonstrated otherwise. I can cite the Wikipedia policy if desired but I don't want to be accused of Wikilawyering. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for using a warning template, I shouldn't have done as it was somewhat patronising. However, I will point out that reverting your edit is very much within WP:BRD; also, the Twinkle template is specifically designed to assume good faith, and I did not intend to imply that you were acting with bad intentions.

Returning to the issue of the article, I agree that most of these individuals will not meet WP:GNG and should not receive their own articles, nor should their positions. That they are leaders of their local political parties is a relevant fact to this set of elections, though, and facts within a given article don't need multiple sources. As it says on WP:NNC, individuals do not need to be considered notable to be included in an article. (If you wish to cite the policy you were referring to, I promise I won't accuse you of Wikilawyering! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PS This probably isn't the best venue for this discussion, as it excludes any other interested individuals: mind if we take it to the article's talk page? YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD banner

Hi! You closed your own Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prescot North (ward) nomination, but most of the pages still have the AfD banner that you originally added. You need to follow the rest of the steps in closing AfDs. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Britton v. Turner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Explaining your edits

When you edit an article, please use the edit summary to explain what you have done and, more importantly, why you have done it. You changed Silverstone Circuit without any explanation. When I reverted your edit (with an edit note explaining why I did so), you just reverted again - and again failed to give any reasons. I have repeated my reversion, with an edit note drawing your attention to MOS:SMALLFONT, specifically Note that ... only refers to semantically-meaningful parts of a document, such as fine print. Do not use it for stylistic reasons. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss: you made a bold edit, I reverted it, you should now use talk:Silverstone Circuit to make a case for the edit you want to make. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Tables

As requested, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table says column headers should not be used in the middle of tables. This is a MOS guideline and so should be adhered to. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I have read that and it is a guide, not a requirement. The section in question specifically states the following.

...editors seem reluctant to split tables, needs more testing and feedback.

I specifically asked for a discussion relating to the 2020 Formula One season page. If such a discussion exists please provide a link to the said discussion.

I have also previously come across incorrect usage of the accessibility guideline, and am reluctant to blindly follow this guideline as it can go over the top and must be used sensibly. There was a move to add double daggers ‡ to every single results page which after discussions was deemed redundant. The discussion in question can be found here. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your moves of Shannons Nationals articles

Hi Sparkle1. Firstly I'd like to point you to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Undiscussed_moves ("Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again"). I reverted your moves which were from longstanding established names, so I ask that you undo your moves and (if desired) start the requested move process.

However I will first say that there is no convention to not include sponsor names. There is policy to use the common name (as used in reliable sources), which in many cases in motorsport does include the sponsor name, eg 2020 NASCAR Xfinity Series and 2009 Fujitsu V8 Supercar Series. In this case the name "CAMS National Racing Championships" is virtually never used, always refereed to as the "Shannons Nationals" (so potentially the year articles could be moved to say, 2013 Shannons Nationals season), eg [1], [2].

If you still believe that the article names should be changed, as I said, undo your moves and either start a requested move, or if you prefer (or are unfamiliar with the process) I can do that for you. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

All fixed I think how do we move this forwards? Sparkle1 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not sure what you mean by move this forwards? I'm reasonably sure you want me to start the move discussions so I will do that in a couple of hours. A7V2 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I will make the RM soon. You forgot to move back the 2014 article and made a small error with the 2013 one so I'll quickly do those now first. A7V2 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK that's done now. The request for all 4 articles is on Talk:Shannons Nationals Motor Racing Championships. A7V2 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sparkle1: - Hi, are you still interested in this issue? I was going to mention the RM in a few Wikiproject talk pages to attract more interest but I was waiting first for you to put your arguments so that other users get the full picture (I don't want to misrepresent your views so I've only put my own). If not I might as well withdraw the request as no-one else has participated yet. A7V2 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bury F.C.

I reverted this edit because you seem to have misunderstood the relationship between the lead section and the article narrative. The lead is a summary of the latter and the quotation you removed can be found in the narrative with the required citation. Its inclusion in the lead is acceptable and not considered duplication. If content is cited in the narrative, there is no requirement for a corresponding citation in the lead.

Also, you removed content from the lead without providing an explanation in the edit summary. You flagged the change as minor but a content removal like that is anything but minor. If you read MOS:LEAD, you should be able to understand the role and purpose of the lead section. You should also read WP:FIES and remember that an edit summary is always required. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The section removed and facted is a direct quote being used without quotation marks, therefore the statement is not neutral and does need independent verification. It is quoted later in the article in speech marks, but at the lede section, it is not. this is changing the meaning of the section and not using it correctly. therefore it should be removed from the section as it stands as it is inaccurate. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please refrain from introducing incorrect information into articles, as you did with British Medical Association. If you believe the statement you added is correct then you need to use references to support it. In general the BMA and similar organisations are not referred to as a trade union. I have reverted these edits as they appear to suggest bias against these organisations, or in the very least your own point of view. I suggest that in future you discuss any changes like this on the talk page before making them. Thank you, This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing good-faith edits, which update and challenge the inaccuracy of the articles. Please engages in good faith editing and not blanket retention of BMA POV pushing. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt please read this policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Having no source violates the above as there is no way of knowing if the information is true of not. Simple as. No source means no inclusion (except in limited circumstances). Sparkle1 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Policies you'll no doubt consult when you find a source describing it as a trade union. Until them, I'm afraid it has to go back to the more widely accepted description. This is Paul (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You cannot simply retain information and lists with no source Wikipeidia policy is to remove them some of these had been tagged for years, continuing to insist on the retention of information without a source is a violation fo Wikipedia policies and will result in you being reported for disruptive behaviour. The onus is on the person aiming for retention to find sources which conform with the policies of Wikipedia. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So is using poor sources to push an argument. Unfortunately I had to revert the whole thing because it was all tied together, but the unsourced information can soon be removed again, but without the addition of the trade union description. I'll do that now. Going forward, a discussion is open at Talk:British Medical Association. I suggest you contribute to it and wait for consensus on which description we should use. This is Paul (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are claiming the UK government is an unreliable source now. You are claiming an unrelated publication where the article focuses exclusively on the BMA as a trade union is unreliable and you are claiming another trade union talking about the BMA as a trade union is unreliable. You are also insisting on retention of lists and unsourced information. Also, a talk has already been started on there but you know that is a low traffic page and you are hoping to win by lack of input stop violating the rules of Wikipedia to retain the information you like and remove information you dislike. no source information must be removed. Source information must be retained unless there is a very good reason to remove it. The use of three independent sources to verify the claim the BMA are a trade union must not be removed without good cause. there has been non shown. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I just Googled "British Medical Association" and "trade union". The first link is their website, which describes them both as a trade union and professional organisation, so technically both are correct. My understanding is that the description we use depends on what most sources describe the organisation as, and what their main function is. I still think we need consensus before making the change. The unsourced text can go, there's not a problem with that. It will be fine for you to move it again, but without the changes to the description and infobox. As for your other claims about wanting to win arguments, etc, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and refrain from making such accusations in future. This is Paul (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nicole Maines

Hey, while Nicole Maines is on my watchpage, I don't always see the edits their right away. Assuming that this debate to remove her deadname fails like all of the other ones, the next time someone tries to bring it up again, feel free to ping me in the conversation so that I know that it's happening and can contribute sooner rather than later. Thank you! JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Attributing talk page comments

I'm not sure what happened in this edit, but when using the Unsigned template to attribute talk page messages by other people, please take care to make sure you're not falsely attributing words to someone. It looks like someone else fixed your mistake, but to be clear, that was not my comment. --Equivamp - talk 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A simple error on my part which the original user appears to have corrected my apologies. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Transgender Erotica Awards

You completely changed these pages without warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_Erotica_Awards

The award winners should have remainded on this page. This was a bold move. This will be redone. Do not move it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukstevenhi (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a page owner. There are separate pages for each and every year of the awards from 2008 when it was called the Tranny Awards up to this year's TEA awards. Shouting Vandalism is assuming bad faith and should be apologised for. There is no need to duplicate information that appears on the award pages. Also, the information on the main page was horrendously incomplete. Please do not add duplicate information which appears in the individual awards pages. Please calm and take a step back. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

American politics DS alert

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.

Template:Z33 ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese GP

When adding content, please add the source into the article, not as an edit summary. Also, [3] is WP:SPECULATION, it says that there might be issues with the Portuguese GP this year, and says nothing about "the lifting or waiving of entry restrictions on non-EU nationals, which currently prohibit entry." It actually says the problem may be related to the UK and Portugal, which is completely different from the text you added. Nevertheless, until something is actually confirmed, we don't need to post speculation. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob

PLease engage in the talkpage discussion that's already there.★Trekker (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Senedd and Holyrood constituency articles

Hey Sparkle

It's Friday night, here at least, and I really don't want you or I to be involved in edit-warring or tension. But both of us, and PP, are in danger of crossing into 3RR territory, so in an attempt to be reasonable and calm, here's my position.

1. You're right, to a degree, about constituency articles. And as I admitted earlier, the constituency articles have been misleading and wrong since they were created. We need to show, in my opinion, that voters have two votes, not just one FPTP vote. The AMS table shows this. 2. You're right, to a degree, that the AMS table looks very different to FPTP tables so it makes the article seem "inbalanced". This can be resolved, and should be discussed about, not merely reverted. 3. You deleted a notice from PinkPanda for a paragraph of your own. This does not assume good faith. 4. You are involved in edit warring with me and PinkPanda. I regret this. You should too. We could - should - discuss this further and in detail. As PP has pointed out, German elections use the same model without issue.

Polling day is on the 6 May. You know, I know, we all know, that there are constructive editing ahead with elections to Holyrood, Senedd, London Assembly, London Mayor, county councils, local elections, and the Hartlepool by-election. Let's focus on all those, working together, than falling apart one hurdle away from the finishing line.

I mean all this in good faith, and with genuine desire to work together. doktorb _words^deeds 18:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

When I have more time I will get back to you @Doktorbuk:. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask why you have hidden my comment? I don't see how it was anything other than polite and constructive. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender DS Alert

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 any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated 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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 23:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion notice

An article that you have been involved in editing, r.e.: Manchester United F.C. v. Liverpool F.C. (2021), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going >>>here<<< and >>>here<<<, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 18:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor assistance notice

Hey Sparkle1

Having seen your use of the word "cancerous" in an edit summary I felt it necessary to flag up my concerns here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editor's_edit_summaries_(language,_tone). Regards. doktorb _words^deeds 06:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am beginning to find you to be quite irritating and someone who is taking far too much interest in me could you please cease and desist. You are wasting not only your time and mine but the project as a whole. Why not have a constructive discussion like you did on the removal of council leaders which might I add was overwhelming in support of their removal. I would also like to point out I am under no obligation to participate in and have disabled notifications for that kind of mention. Moving on edit summaries are not compulsory just good practice. Not everything needs to be explained to death and not everyone always puts in an edit summary. I feel you are singling me out, at least complain every single time you see someone not post an edit summary or stop being selective. In short, respect being bold. If you are objecting to an edit then be bold yourself and revert. Then discuss. That is common practice in line with WP:BRD. Otherwise, please stop this, as this is tiresome. This is the only time I will address this so please do not post anything else here on this subject as I will simply delete it. If you wish to talk about other things related to article contents or new articles or projects feel free. Please also do not take this personally, this is simply me giving you my view on this and my opinion of your actions, and is no reflection on you personally. I am happy to work with you on furthering the aims of Wikipedia, I am just completely uninterested in minutiae like this which has the feel of tiresome red tape. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Batley and Spen

Hey Sparkle. Thanks for the revert on the by-election page. The editor keeps popping up with paragraphs of text about the English Independence Party and all sorts, he was the candidate in the previous B&S by-election as "Anti Corbyn" and pops up occasionally to post tonnes of paragraphs about related and unrelated topics. If he's appearing on that page again we just need to be vigilant. doktorb _words^deeds 07:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fair Play For Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trans people.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Forstater abbreviations

Hi Sparkle1, I would recommend deleting your recent comment about Crossroads. I am certain that Crossroads understands abbreviations, and saying otherwise is uncivil and insulting. If you want to keep the comment, I would appreciate you taking my name out of it, as I don't want to be linked to what I perceive as incivility. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest you advise Crossroads to delete their comments if you have not already done so, which amount to attacks on me and are a pure and simple assumption of bad faith. I am not going to be playing this as a one-way street. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)