User talk:Dmol

............ PLEASE NOTE ...........

Deletion and reference tags.

If I add a tag to your page requesting deletion, or references,

PLEASE DO NOT START A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DELETION HERE.

Please follow the instructions on the tag, and put the required info into the deletion discussion, or on the article's talk page.

It makes much more sense to keep discussions with the article, rather than having readers follow it across several users' talk pages.

Thank you.

...........................

Rainbowdashdude2

Blocked as a sock but will be back again. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavefish777. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who disappeared mysteriously

Hello Dmol, I would like some advice please? Two(?) editors are going through the list on List of people who disappeared mysteriously adding the wording "Disappearance of". I have reverted several times, as the title of the article already states this and the links to the names are valid. It is not too important as only the names appear in the article and I have no intention of edit warring, but these edits do seem unnecessary. Would be grateful for your input. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clue Bot NC

Oops wrong button that I used above. But same question. Does your being an environmentalist mean you oppose hunting? Serious question thanks.Clue Bot NC (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you deleted the Steven Newing addition despite me providing you with a link to an article from Norfolk police? I suppose your one of these serial deleters who have to fiddle about nitpicking because you have nothing better to do and would rather your own self aggrandizement got in the way of the truth about Steven Newing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaplain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting others Talk Page Comments, Jeremy Kewley

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jeremy_Kewley, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Although like you I question the legitimacy of the comment it oughtn't to be removed unilaterally with no comment left. SPACKlick (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the policy then shall we?

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection - There was clearly objection, he reinstated it.
If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~ ~]" - No such note was left.
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:...Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. - So policy says this action is controversial and other methods should be used.

Your action was clearly against policy. It is not permissible to remove material just because you are offended by the use of the word "cunt". SPACKlick (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing Chuck Yeager profile? You do not have facts correct. AT least allow the facts in addition to the hearsay you keep reposting. Victoria Yeager knows what employ she was in when she met Chuck Yeager. You don't. Name one acting gig she had in 2000. 1999 1998

Further, court records showed she also prevailed in the court case

The Ed Dwight posting is based on triple hearsay. Not one person who was there corroborates Dwight's version.

The Indian incident - Yeager was not near the plane. It was parked on the ground with no one attending.

Please explain why you keep changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria20201 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dmol. You have new messages at Talk:Streisand effect.
Message added 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think that, perhaps, the IP editor might have been reverted when the basic claim being made is now supported. N2e (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dmol, I think you might have added an image of a double decker bus to the Topdeck page, I would like to have access to that image in a higher res.

trecarr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trecarr (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Street

I removed the addition of Jalan Street to the List of tautological place names because there is no evidence that Jalan is an Indonesian word in this case, since Indonesian is not widely spoken in Australia. It can be just a coincidence that this word means street in that language. For instance, it can have this name after a person called Jalan (I have a friend called Calle, which is street in Spanish). Maybe this was not clear in my short comment to my edition but, unless we know for certain that the street gets its name from the Indonesian word, it is not a tautological name.--Gorpik (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Dmol! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cairns (CANS or KENS, not CARE-NZ)

Check here Luxure Σ 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KrisFlyer

Hi, I noticed you half-way reverted my splitting of content from Singapore Airlines to KrisFlyer. You removed the content from KrisFlyer without re-adding it at [[Singapore Airlines. That's not very tactful. The reason the article was split is because the Singapore Airlines article (as of 2015, not 2007 when the AFD was made) is too full for content on KrisFlyer. The decision made then was based on the articles as they were on that date, and the KrisFlyer article as of that date was different than the recent split which you decided to undo. Please be more careful in the future, and if you believe the articles should be re-merged, start a discussion on the talk-page. Thank you.Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Island

I reverted your edit where you changed "none of which were" to "none of which was". My understanding is that the meaning of that sentence is "none of them were successful" or "all of them were unsuccessful". From looking at grammar and etymology sources, it also appears that none is not a modern contraction for "not/no one" but rather from the Old English "nan" and there is a lot of discussion in sources about the word being singular or plural...so maybe both of us are right *and* wrong?! Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arminius

Was arminius not germanic polytheist????????¿ Áki audo ásbjorn (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who disappeared mysteriously

Hi Dmol,
After having a well sourced (though red-linked) entry I added to List of people who disappeared mysteriously reverted, I am trying to find where there is a real discussion and consensus on this issue. I really can't see that there is, as when you tried to restart the discussion on 31 August 2011 at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously#Notability criteria., only yourself and one other editor commented. If I am wrong, please point me to it if possible.

My edit, and attempts to discuss it, seems to have caused some 'consternation' at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously#Update. Another opinion would be nice, regards, 220 of ^Borg 11:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jermzc

As far as I can see, the reference from the Daily Mail relating to AirAsia, which this editor has repeatedly added, is a valid reference and the editor's statement is correct. you will note that he does not state that AirAsia is unsafe; he states that AirAsia is reported to be unsafe, which is clearly true. He has certainly been edit-warring, and edit-warring when correct is still a blockable offence, but I would welcome your view as to whether there has been an over-reaction here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp Murder of Kylie Maybury Murder of Sheree Beasley

@Dmol: Hi.

Could you take a look at these articles on famous Australian murders that i helped create or heavily edited, just to make sure they are written right for Wikipedia?

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp, Murder of Kylie Maybury, Murder of Sheree Beasley Paul Austin (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.308 Winchester look at the revision history!

You'll probably get a chuckle out of scrolling back on the revisions and looking at the number of people who have tried to correct this infobox in various ways. What happened, as User:Francis Flinch pointed out to me on my talk page was that someone had entered incorrect source code data. When you get back to comparing the way the datasets are formatted you'll see the set for the 125 looks right to the person unfamiliar (i.e. every one of us, me and yourself included) didn't notice that it was wrong. I never would have found it unless Francis hadn't reverted what I thought was a good edit and the reversion got me to looking closer. So I corrected the way the data was entered into the table and now it works!Trilobitealive (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! Another problem with the infobox template has occurred. IT will only accept 5 datasets, regardless. See Talk:.308 Winchester#Infobox editing mistakes problem - please refer to Template:Infobox firearm cartridge and article history before discussing. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup this Saturday

This is just a friendly reminder of the Brisbane meetup that is occurring this Saturday at the Queensland Art Gallery café, which you have expressed an interest in attending. Please check the meetup page as some of the details may have changed since you last looked. I look forward to seeing you there! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 18 November 2015 (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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Karl

sorry it is cited in his qualifications..he does not have a phd.

Fence pailing (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banshee

I see multiple mentions of Kerry on your user page and wanted to say Cork, like. No hard feelings on this side, I was actually glad you reverted the page move. I see the talk page notice and am interested what comes of it. Happy editing fwiw. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect

Sorry about that. I don't know how I managed to miss it. D'oh!. Good catch. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island name vs country name etc

Hey - I've put up comments on the talk page of the article. Please continue the debate. Cheers. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR in Truck

Hi, As I'm sure you know, ENGVAR maintains that the entire article, including picture captions, should be in the same variety of english. In the article Truck the authors and community are using American English, rather than british. Please refrain from changing the captions to 'lorry' as that is incorrect in the scope of this article. This has been hashed out in many other articles before. If you think this is unreasonable, I invite you to do an RFC and see what the community wishes. Cheerio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:8C18:72E9:2CD3:2E3F (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-running POV push by this editor. Look at potato crisp. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Timatic

Just to let you know: Talk:Timatic#Illustrations. Cheers! Syced (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup

Come along! Kerry (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Getting information

Hi, are you a Wikipedia administrator? Your name is not on the list of administrators, but I thought that you were one Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart:, No I am not an admin. Thanks.--Dmol (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dmol. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Noticeboard

I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [1] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of religion

Thanks, my attempt to fix the spelling failed. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being an environmentalist

Hi, I read on your user page that you are an environmentalist, well so I am and have been for years. It's good to know other people care about the earth as well! Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccompanied minors

I think we have a problem.[2]. KOT-TOK does say look for reactions to that edit, so if you could comment on their talk page it might help, although I'm pessimistic. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note to you on Talk Page

Hi Dmol

Just wanted to make sure you saw my discussion with you on the World Passport page - at the bottom. I'd appreciate it if you could please take a look at it so we can get this resolved.

Thank you

ArthurKane (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup - Sunday 10 December 2017 at The Edge, State Library of Queensland

If you are in or near Brisbane, please join us on Sunday 10 December 2017 any time from noon to 4pm at The Edge at the State Library of Queensland. For more details and to sign up, please go to the meetup page. See you there! Kerry (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dmol. 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)[reply]

Murder of Allison Baden-Clay disappearing mysteriously

@Dmol: Hi, the reason I listed Allison Baden-Clay as disappearing mysteriously is because she disappeared for ten days and was later found dead which is a disappearance, but maybe not "mysterious", does that make sense? I personally think that the "mysterious" should be dropped from the title as it should focus more on that the person went missing, and not why they went missing. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup: Saturday 13 January 2018 at The Edge, State Library of Queensland

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

If you are in or near Brisbane, please join us on Saturday 13 January 2018 any time from noon to 4pm at The Edge at the State Library of Queensland. For more details and to sign up, please go to the meetup page. See you there! Kerry (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of eating meat

Thank you for your feedback Dmol. Would you like to engage in a discussion about the given subject? DrownLies (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a discussion on the talk page of the article if you wish. --Dmol (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PC reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alured de Valer

The article Alured de Valer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Family genealogy cruft. Being "mentioned" in the Domesday Book doesn't make you notable, given that it was an attempt to record everyone in England for tax purposes.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dmol. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dmol. 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)[reply]

May 2019

Talk:Streisand_effect#The_Verge_example. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Skiplagged

Hello Dmol. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Skiplagged, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. So Why 08:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Reading edit

Hello Dmol. I see that you made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&type=revision&diff=923026011&oldid=923022198 on the "Cold Reading" page.

You changed what appeared to me to be a perfectly good edit by an "unregistered editor". Your edit summary "This is the whole basic of their claim. Discuss changes on the talk page if you want to reach consensus." seems a bit non sequitur.

I think you are a little out of process. A revert of the previous edit would have been more appropriate if you disagreed with the content of "unregistered editor's" addition.

You restructured two sentences into one sentence with a conjuction of "i.e. scam artists" which is awkard and creates an unnecessay ambiguity. Additional, inclusion of "scam artists" lacks a necessary relivance as the article is considered to be addressing "Cold Reading" as a "communication technique".

On this basis I am reverting your edit. I will post this paragraph to the Cold Reading talk page. I would entertain your thoughts on the subject by discusion on the talk page if you want to reach consenus.

Osomite (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong reference in lede to prosperity theology

With regard to edit reinstating comment about prosperity gospel, was the edit by Cob666ber also inappropriate for the lede?

In other words, is the issue that prosperity theology is merely a tangential aspect of Hillsong, or is it the weakness of the claim that "some people" consider Hillsong to be part of the prosperity movement? Would the lede benefit by further trimming of certain details, such as the names of the Hillsong music groups? Fabrickator (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "POV push"

Crucifixion article was edited to read more fairly. Current state has heavy confirmation bias towards religious belief instead of understood fact. Sawjared (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brumby

I will need help to upload the evidence as I am new to edits on this platform. The decisions are not impartial and are showing bais, The Federal Court of Australia. File No 1569 of 2018. On 8may 2020 The ABA Inc. vers the Vict Parks Inc Judge O'Bryanj Section 19 Ruled that the use of the term had undesirable conertations toward the Brumby and exploited by Parks Vic, the wild horse was not the best choice as it has a historical background of being introduced so the use of the term Brumby was and is the impartial name for the Australian equine. I also have up-to-date ecolagy reports from colleges arriving expectantly to support the pages now fair naritave of the Australian Brumy and not that from a totally ecologically outdated and bias and demeaning perspective. Shenqijing (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC), I have no confidence in the provision of non bias evidence presented on this page and would like to collaborate with moving this page forward to a more impartial representation of the Australian Brumy. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Shenqijing (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feral to Brumby on Brumby page.

Hello, look I am a little confused can you direct me to where the evidence that supports that as a Scientific statement feral should be used instead of Brumby or Naturalised please. Shenqijing (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is very biased toward presentation of feral horse deficiencies instead of pointing to Brumby attributes.

Shenqijing (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to IUCN Scientific Guidlines the Word feral does not appear to apply to this animal. Infact it could be seen to be considered Naturalised as it is self sustainable and self sufficient after being introduced. We need a more open descision please. Shenqijing (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flowcode

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flowcode again --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mediumship seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]