User talk:Crawiki

Hello, Crawiki, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nihil novi the quotations section in historic recurrence has now been removed. Havevyou any idea why, or by whom? How do I findbinfo on that?

I moved them to Wikiquote: "Historic recurrence" (click on this to see it).

Nihil novi (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits - but please be aware that you should only add information that is supported by reliable, published sources that can be verified. Unsourced material can be, and often is, removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Historic recurrence, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I note that you did this twice, adding it again after you were reverted. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joshua S Goldstein has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User talk:KGirlTrucker81 were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crawiki, on 30 August 2017 you added some interesting items to the "Historic recurrence" Quotations section. Omnipaedista has deleted them on the ground that sources were not provided. (Where you did provide sources for your contributions to the Similarities section, they have not been removed.)

Could you copy-and-paste your Quotations back in, giving sources for them?

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find your contributions by clicking on the "Historic recurrence" View history function at the top of the article. You can then make changes to the article by first clicking on the Edit function at the top of the page.

The procedures take a little getting used to, but they are logical and readily learned by imitating how others have used them.

Let me know if you have further questions. Good luck!

Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is pretty adamant about sources having to be given. (Otherwise, contributors could write whatever they liked.)

I have had new articles of mine tagged for deletion the same day I started them. I've generally managed to rescue them, and they flourish to this day, years later! Don't get discouraged: you are contributing to the enlightenment of all mankind.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring your "Historic recurrence" quotations.

Question: How did you come by them? Through source readings? Via searches, e.g. through Google?

Nihil novi (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 {{Help me} yesterday I posted items on the ideology page with references. Today they've been deleted without notifying me why. how can I improve as a contributor if I'm not told where I've gone wrong? Crawiki (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

I have made a few copyedits to your Eric Hoffer quotations on "Ideology" (q.v.). You have provided precise references for them, so I am hopeful that some overzealous or misguided editor won't delete them.

In your 11 September 2017 quotations, you don't seem to have provided sources beyond author: probably a factor in their deletion.

I suggest that you consistently sign yourself "crawiki" rather than "195.194.75.226". A name inspires more confidence than a number.

Also, I suggest you put something, if only a single punctuation mark, on your talk page, in order to remove the red coloring from your user name. The red color is like the proverbial (though factually incorrect) red cloth to a bull.

Best, Nihil novi (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Restored quotations on historic recurrence; how did I come by them? Through extensive reading during long spells of unemployment. 'If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade' - [1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]  

You've clearly made good use of your time!

(New paragraphs need to start at the margin, as I do it, to avoid the shaded background.)

Nihil novi (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I also wrote a book with what I thought an original theory on historic recurrence. As yet unpublished. Then I heard about, and read, Ibn Khaldun, and realised he'd arrived at similar conclusions 640 years earlier. Brief summary is at www.terror-rhythm.blogspot.com if you're interested to know more. Even briefer summary at my first Wikipedia page, 'political midlife crisis', which I think is still awaiting review and approval. 

Was your 6 September 2017 "Historic recurrence" contribution, listing 20-year intervals for warlike episodes, based on your own observations, or on a published source? (The absence of the latter would, prima facie, explain its having been deleted. On Wikipedia, "original research" is the original sin!)

A 20-year interval between wars makes sense. It takes about that long to bring up a new gullible generation that, in some cases, is actually enthusiastic about experiencing war: how else can one indulge in murder, mayhem, pillage, and rape—and be awarded medals for it?

If you are not already an academically certified historian, and if you can afford the expenses, you might consider history as an academic career. Then, when you publish, you can pseudonymously enter your ideas into Wikipedia!

Nihil novi (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your "www.terror-rhythm.blogspot.com" (I couldn't find 'political midlife crisis' on Wikipedia). I think that, like Ibn Khaldun and commentators on historic cycles since antiquity, you've given much thought to these phenomena; and you are seeing deep below the superficial contemporary layer that nearly everyone dwells in. Something that has struck me, in reading history, is that all countries, including currently small ones, seem to go through similar cycles of expansion, as far as they can, before they get clobbered over the head and lose some of their megalomania. Big empires age till they explode like a supernova; small empires collapse in on themselves as white dwarves. There is much more, at every level of observation and analogy, that could be said of these historic processes... The predictability of the processes is terrifying, and it is hard to close one's eyes to them because they ineluctably threaten each and every one of us.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 As Orwell said, it's a global mental disorder. The infecting agents are lies deceits and fallacious reasoning of all kinds. Neither schools nor even politics students, in my experience, receive instruction in how to oppose such behaviour. Instead, force of habit prevails. 

I can access the wikipedia page I wrote on political midlife crisis by clicking on 'your sandbox page' for editing purposes but it seems no one else can google it. I don't know enough about computing to know why. I can share it to you via email, SMS etc if you want to look into it.

USA 20 year intervals, all my own work alas.

 I'm 64, with careers in banking and teaching completed. a bit old for a new career in history. possibly not eligible for a doctorate bcos only got a 2.2. Unless you know of a shortcut...? 

I guess the banking taught me to see things in terms of systems. spent a long time studying accountancy, law, economics. history is the only social science lacking systems and classifications.

  Would appreciate if someone, somewhere in wikipedia would look into the 'political midlife crisis' article and see what's become of it. here is the full text; 

POLITICAL MIDLIFE CRISIS

A political midlife crisis is a turning point in the fortunes of a governing entity, such as an empire, nation, faction, political party or an international alliance. These events occur after a prolonged golden age of optimism, economic progress, conquest or other success, and typically feature an attack on, or threats toward, a rival power. These attacks are vigorously opposed, end in stalemate or defeat. The political midlife crisis is then followed by an era of existential doubt, pessimism and hesitancy.            ===HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT=== Joshua S Goldstein in his 1988 book, Long Cycles; Prosperity and War in the Modern Age was the first to write explicitly about this phenomenon. He cited four examples; 

1) The British Empire. After the industrial revolution and the railway boom of 1815-53, Britain attacked Russia, which was perceived as a threat to British India and eastern Mediterranean trade routes thereto. The Crimean war highlighted the poor state of the British army and the UK took no further part in European wars until 1914.

2) The German Empire (second Reich) and World War One. Germany under Bismarck was unified from 1864-71, then achieved forty years of rapid industrial, military and colonial expansion. In 1914 the Schlieffen Plan for conquering France in eight weeks was to be followed by the subjugation of Russia, leaving Germany the master of Mitteleuropa. France, UK and Russia then fought Germany to a standstill, defeat, a humiliating peace settlement, and the unstable, vacillating years of the Weimar Republic.

3) The USSR and the Cuban missile crisis. The USSR industrialised rapidly under Stalin and was a rival nuclear superpower to the US when in 1962, Khrushchev sent nuclear missiles to Cuba, 70 miles from Florida. President John F Kennedy blockaded the island and insisted the missiles be removed.

4) The USA and the Vietnam War. America, always ideologically opposed to communism, fought a losing battle against their agents, the Vietcong, from 1964-72. The belief that defeat would result in all of Indochina being Communised proved erroneous.[1]

After Cuba and Vietnam, both superpowers softened their stance and sought cooperation and detente. In the 1960's two major ideas emerged; neoconservatism in the USA, and  the Werner plan for European monetary union(EMU). Recent events such as 9/11, and the inconclusive Iraq and Afghan wars prompted professor Gary Weaver and Adam Mendelson to publish The American Midlife Crisis in 2008: they cite a survey of 109 historians, 99% of whom rated George W Bush a 'failure' as president, two-thirds rating him the 'worst ever'. Weaver and Mendelson write that the US was in its 'childhood' prior to 1898; adolescence from 1898-1945; young adulthood from 1945-91; adulthood from 1991-2001. The trauma of the Bush presidency caused the US to be 'seasoned with new strength, wisdom and maturity'. [2] The implication is that the US has another 250 years or so until it reaches senility. But the analysis appears slightly arbitrary and sanguine, given the many other US crises; the war of 1812, US-Mexican war, American Civil war, Indian wars, Great depression, Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war; it is possible that the US has experienced not one, but several midlife crises, each affecting a faction rather than the whole nation.   The Eurozone crisis has been called the EU midlife crisis in articles by Gideon Rachman, [3], Roland Benedikter, [4], and Natalie Nougayrede [5]. ===OTHER MIDLIFE CRISES IN HISTORY=== 

In War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy asks, 'What is the cause of this movement which took the French army all the way from Paris to Moscow, and then back to Paris? A system, a mysterious callous force...the unconscious swarm-life of mankind.'

In France, the Napoleonic age begun by Napoleon I in 1799 was resumed by his nephew Napoleon III from 1848-70. The decision to invade Russia in 1812 was thus the midlife crisis of the Napoleonic era which began with Napoleon I in 1798, and ended with Napoleon III in 1870. It was supposed to secure a French-Russian alliance which would then conquer India, but ended in a rout, and the exile of Bonaparte; prompting Stanley Michalak to write that 'In 1812 napoleon failed the supreme test of power politics - knowing when to stop.' [6]

  The Stuart dynasty ruled England from 1603 to 1714, but in the middle of this episode, Charles I pushed his royal absolutism too far and was defeated, deposed and beheaded by the patliamentary forces of Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army. The Amritsar massacre is recognized as a turning point in the British Raj in India, as it horrified world opinion and encouraged agitation for independence. ( see William Dalrymple, [7]). Likewise, the Sharpeville massacre of 1960 in Apartheid South Africa brought on a state of emergency, and drove the ANC underground in an armed struggle. [8] [9])  An article in The Economist ([10]was one of the first to recognize the nature of the Credit Crunch of 2007-8. 

  ===THEORETICAL EXPLANATION===  Goldstein's concept begs the question; if polities have a midlife crisis, when does that life begin and end? Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun, in the Muqadimmah, 1377, set out a general theory of the rise and fall of regimes. First a ruthless conquerer with 'desert attitude' establishes a new dynasty. Over several years, Royal authority and 'asabiyyah', social cohesion, enable 'expansion to the limit'. But here a turning point is reached, just as in the life of an individual;         'When a man reaches forty, nature stops         growing for a while, then starts to          decline. The same is the case with          sedentary culture in civilisation.' [11] The sedentary culture of the dynasty causes them to love luxury and pomp. The people are over-taxed, and acquire the 'habit of subservience' [12]; their rulers subvert property rights, and are weak, dishonest and divided. Finally, after three generations, equivalent to the lifespan of a man, the dynasty becomes 'senile and coercive ' [13] There may be a last 'brightly burning show of power' [14], but collapse is inevitable. A new dynasty takes over, and the cycle continues. Ibn Khaldun said, 'this senility is a chronic disease that cannot be cured because it is something natural.'  [15] That conclusion may have been sufficient for his time, but in our age of fervently opposed ideologies and WMD, a greater effort of understanding may be called for.   ===QUOTATIONS=== 'An earthly paradise is not made by this endless repetition, going round and round like a caged animal, making always the same thing. Take instead a step on the ascent of rational knowledge.'.  -Jacob Bronowski 

'The world is suffering from a kind of mental illness which must be diagnosed before it can be cured.'. -George Orwell. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

 After Cuba and Vietnam, both superpowers softened their stance and sought cooperation and detente.  In the 1960's two major ideas emerged; neoconservatism in the USA, and  the Werner plan for European monetary union(EMU). Recent events such as 9/11, and the inconclusive Iraq and Afghan wars prompted professor Gary Weaver and Adam Mendelson to publish The American Midlife Crisis in 2008: they cite a survey of 109 historians, 99% of whom rated George W Bush a 'failure' as president, two-thirds rating him the 'worst ever'. Weaver and Mendelson write that the US was in its 'childhood' prior to 1898; adolescence from 1898-1945; young adulthood from 1945-91; adulthood from 1991-2001. The trauma of the Bush presidency caused the US to be 'seasoned with new strength, wisdom and maturity'. [2]  The implication is that the US has another 250 years or so until it reaches senility. But the analysis appears slightly arbitrary and sanguine, given the many other US crises; the war of 1812, US-Mexican war, American Civil war, Indian wars, Great depression, Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war; it is possible that the US has experienced not one, but several midlife crises, each affecting a faction rather than the whole nation.    The Eurozone crisis has been called the EU midlife crisis in articles by Gideon Rachman, [3], Roland Benedikter, [4], and Natalie Nougayrede [5].  ===OTHER MIDLIFE CRISES IN HISTORY=== In War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy asks, 'What is the cause of this movement which took the French army all the way from Paris to Moscow, and then back to Paris? A system, a mysterious callous force...the unconscious swarm-life of mankind.' 

In France, the Napoleonic age begun by Napoleon I in 1799 was resumed by his nephew Napoleon III from 1848-70. The decision to invade Russia in 1812 was thus the midlife crisis of the Napoleonic era which began with Napoleon I in 1798, and ended with Napoleon III in 1870. It was supposed to secure a French-Russian alliance which would then conquer India, but ended in a rout, and the exile of Bonaparte; prompting Stanley Michalak to write that 'In 1812 napoleon failed the supreme test of power politics - knowing when to stop.' ^[6]

   The Stuart dynasty ruled England from 1603 to 1714, but in the middle of this episode, Charles I pushed his royal absolutism too far and was defeated, deposed and beheaded by the patliamentary forces of Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army.  The Amritsar massacre is recognized as a turning point in the British Raj in India, as it horrified world opinion and encouraged agitation for independence. ( see William Dalrymple, [7]). Likewise, the Sharpeville massacre of 1960 in Apartheid South Africa brought on a state of emergency, and drove the ANC underground in an armed struggle. [8] [9])   An article in The Economist ([10]was one of the first to recognize the nature of the Credit Crunch of 2007-8. 

   ===THEORETICAL EXPLANATION===   Goldstein's concept begs the question; if polities have a midlife crisis, when does that life begin and end?  Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun, in the Muqadimmah, 1377, set out a general theory of the rise and fall of regimes. First a ruthless conquerer with 'desert attitude' establishes a new dynasty. Over several years, Royal authority and 'asabiyyah', social cohesion, enable 'expansion to the limit'. But here a turning point is reached, just as in the life of an individual; 

When a man reaches forty, nature stops

growing for a while, then starts to decline. The same is the case with

sedentary culture in civilisation.

^[11]

 The sedentary culture of the dynasty causes them to love luxury and pomp. The people are over-taxed, and acquire the 'habit of subservience' [12]; their rulers subvert property rights, and are weak, dishonest and divided. Finally, after three generations, equivalent to the lifespan of a man, the dynasty becomes 'senile and coercive ' [13] There may be a last 'brightly burning show of power' [14], but collapse is inevitable. A new dynasty takes over, and the cycle continues.  Ibn Khaldun said, 'this senility is a chronic disease that cannot be cured because it is something natural.'  [15] That conclusion may have been sufficient for his time, but in our age of fervently opposed ideologies and WMD, a greater effort of understanding may be called for.    ===QUOTATIONS===  'An earthly paradise is not made by this endless repetition, going round and round like a caged animal, making always the same thing. Take instead a step on the ascent of rational knowledge.'.  -Jacob Bronowski  'The world is suffering from a kind of mental illness which must be diagnosed before it can be cured.'. -George Orwell. <ref>  Essay, 19/11/1946 <.ref> 

Crawiki (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can access my comments via searching the article up on Wikipedia or in your own user contributions. As for Amity-Enmity Complex, I have noted that the article has not be categorised. Thank you. Arbustum (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Political Midlife Crisis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTESSAY

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. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ideocracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to FSB, Last resort, Mark Leonard, Ukrainian civil war, Outgroup and Annexation of Crimea

Realistic conflict theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Outgroup

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires sources. Articles are supposed to "neutrally summarize reliable sources", after all. Kleuske (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ideology in literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideology in literature until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "historic recurrence" section above is very hard to follow. Maybe WP:INDENT will help you and not adding spaces before a sentence on a new line will fix it. And don't forget to sign on all talk pages.

Section headings in article should not have wikilinks. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ideocracy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Communist China and Tito (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was too late today to try to make a "save" of your "Ideology in literature" article, which is now deleted.

The deleters' principal objection to the article is that it was "original research", not backed by citations to publications on the subject, which was new to Wikipedia.

I suggest that you review literature on the subject available on the internet, e.g., via Google Search, and cobble together an article from it; then place most of your earlier quotations into a related Wikiquote article.

This will take a little effort, but your article may yet be salvageable.

Some sample internet items that might be of interest:

• [1] Michael Moriarty, "Ideology in literature", Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 11, issue 1, 2006.

• [2] Aileen Kelly, "Ideology in literature" (book review), Slavic Review, vol. 50, no. 3 (fall 1991), p. 715 (ISSN: 0037-6779).

• Many university doctoral theses on the subject, listed in Google Search.

You might best work the new article up in your user page's "sandbox", then transfer it into the general Wikipedia.

In the event that Wikipedia does not permit reuse of the original title, "Ideology in literature", you could try a variant, e.g., "Ideology and literature".

Good luck! If you give this a try, let me know and I'll look in from time to time to suggest technical editing solutions.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to save it. Nobody liked this stuff. Puzzled as to why people claimed it was improperly sourced. Plenty of references to independent published work IMHO. There are two similar, overlapping articles; Politics in fiction and Political fiction. Both focus almost exclusively on novels rather than theatre, and one is mostly a chronological list. Scope to combine and expand these? Also, the Ideology article makes no mention of literary influences. Crawiki (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some templates indicating needed improvements to The Great Wave (book). Most importantly, more third party sources should be discussed, such that this isn't merely showcasing the author's work and views. Per WP:NPOV, all significant views should be portrayed in proportion to their prominence in reliable, secondary sources. The premise of the book should be summarized but not given undue weight, while secondary sources provide necessary context, significance, and real-world impact of the subject. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused when I put a colon in double quotes you were not supposed to include the double quotes:

 A comment  :A retort  ::A clarification  :::Another retort 

Gives:

A comment

A retort

A clarification

Another retort

Sometimes people use a bullet point particularly in WP:RfC like this:

• Support the proposal because it clarifies the text.

The way to post reply to that can take two forms (1) without bullet points in the reply (the usual way):

 *'''Support''' the proposal because it clarifies the text.  *: How does it improve the text?  *:: it is obvious 

Gives:

• Support the proposal because it clarifies the text.

  How does it improve the text?

  it is obvious

(2) with bullet points in the replies:

 *'''Support''' the proposal because it clarifies the text.  :* How does it improve the text?  ::* it is obvious 

Gives:

• Support the proposal because it clarifies the text.

• How does it improve the text?

• it is obvious

Hope that helps. -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly does. Many thanks Crawiki (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Marina Ottaway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/marina-ottaway. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG the offending text has been paraphrased and tag therefore removed, hope this is OK now? Crawiki (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am skeptical about notability, because all her publications are short reports, not books. I will list it for a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need to show her publications are substantial. Please add ful publication information, including page count and ISBN. You can get numbers of libraries holding them from WorldCat. There should be published reviews of them--please add. They are the critical factor for meeting WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have been publishing books since 1970. Details added as per your request Crawiki (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crawiki it would help save confusion between articles and books if the titles of books by Marina Ottaway were in italics. Rwood128 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rwood128 thanks Crawiki (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crawiki. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Power Politics (Wight book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Politics (Wight book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the following comments are helpful, though you may find them impertinent.

During recent weeksI have been looking at the various articles that you have created and have eventually come to respect your enthusiasm and knowledge. However, you seem to be ignorant of Wikipedia policies and several articles that you have created have been marked for deletion. Furthermore, you are so eager to create new articles that you leave earlier creations in a very rough state, i.e. State collapse and The Meaning of Hitler (book). You need to use of your personal "Sandbox"–see link at the very top of the page, next to your user name– and probably get the article reviewed before posting it (see Wikipedia: Article wizard. Why this frantic hurry?

'you seem to be ignorant of Wikipedia policies'. This is unsurprising, given that I've only been editing since August 2017. Nor am I alone in this. I've noticed that experienced editors lack awareness of WP:No personal attacks and WP: What SYNTH is not. Crawiki (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'...and several articles that you have created have been marked for deletion.' Actually of these, only one was deleted. Crawiki (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Furthermore, you are so eager to create new articles that you leave earlier creations in a very rough state' You are mixing correlation and causation here. The cause of the alleged 'rough state' is my inexperience, not my 'eagerness to create new articles.Crawiki (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was rough on you! All the best for 2018. Rwood128 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rwood128 no apology necessary. My New year's resolution; to pay more attention to detail.All the best to you also. Crawiki (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have edited someone else's comment here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted that edit. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crawiki, best wishes in the new year!

I have enjoyed, learned from, and been stimulated by your 2017 Wikipedia contributions.

I hope we may look forward to more of your work in 2018!

Nihil novi (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks User:Nihil novi, best to you also. Crawiki (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for error Crawiki (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I noticed in copyediting part of your "State collapse" article, you made reference to an article in "Telegraph". There are several publications containing that word, therefore I could not specify the periodical in question. (I noted this fact in my edit summary.) Could you please provide the "Telegraph's" full name?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for error, will correct Crawiki (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revolutionary wave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Board of Control (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it were a town now. It's a microrayon.Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See List of cities in Crimea. Rwood128 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crimean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaclava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Presumption of guilt, Crawiki!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add references that directly define this concept broadly: the Robertson ref is only tangentially touches on one narrow aspect, and does not support the remainder of the text in this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presumption of guilt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brendan O'Neill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed.Crawiki (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Antisemitism, 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. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot be serious. I see the f-word, I delete it. In what way can abuse be classed as 'legitimate comment'?Where in the welcome page does it say that the f-word is acceptable? Crawiki (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're adults here - some salty language can be expected. You can ask other editors to tone it down but please leave existing posts alone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really. And for the record the answers to my questions are....?Crawiki (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has already progressed a bit beyond the level 1 warning I gave earlier, but to answer your questions: WP:Offensive material is a guideline about inclusion of content some may find offensive in articles. It doesn't really address talk pages, though the thrust of this guideline is that WP is not censored so I am not sure why your reading of that led you to think that censoring others would be welcomed.

The actual relevant guideline is WP:TPO, which is linked in the template at the start of this section. That section clearly states, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Profanity is not one of the specific exceptions noted later in the section, indeed, later in the section the guideline notes, "....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." VQuakr (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Antisemitism. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the f-word, I delete it. You don't like it, tough on you. See WP: Offensive material.

Obscenities not wanted Crawiki (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit-war to remove content you disagree with from another editor's post, you will be blocked for edit warring. You may not agree with the strong-wording, but you have no right to modify it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is not 'strong' wording, it's 'obscenity' as explained in WP: vandalism. Ridiculous tomake threats of blocking when all I am doing is to abide by the rules. Stop this petty aggression.Crawiki (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "petty aggression", it was an attempt to get you to stop edit warring by linking to the relevant policies in order for you to avoid getting blocked. The rules you are "abiding" by are of your own making and not enforceable by Wikipedia administrators; unlike disruptive editing by edit warring to restore content that is not censored.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I see the f-word, I delete it." - No. You've been told by multiple editors that this attitude is not representative of community standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crawiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I deleted the word 'fucking' from the antisemitism talk page as this obscenity violates WP: vandalism and WP: no personal attacks. For this I am blocked? A clear case of blaming the victim

Decline reason:

A clear case of disruptive editing, more like. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Using strong language on talk pages is not vandalism and the obscenity was not used as a personal attack. If you drop the stick, I will unblock you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin note Concur "that strong language on talk pages is not vandalism and the obscenity was not used as a personal attack." Wile I personally lament what I perceive as a decline in civility and collegiality system wide, I recognize it is probably a generational perspective and that the community at large sees it differently. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC

Good of you to point out that my standards are higher than the 'community at large'. Crawiki (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot-- I also concur that refactoring the comments of others HERE, HERE, and HERE was disruptive. Please do not do that again. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to make sense of this episode at all. Perhaps there is no vandalism or personal attack on talk pages. But WP: Don't be rude and WP: civility surely still apply. I fail to see that deleting the f-word, which is meaningless verbal fungus, is 'disruptive editing'.Crawiki (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my strong language upset you so much. Do you know what upsets me? People who pretend antisemitism doesn't exist, especially when everybody in the world sees that it does.

You left a message at Talk:Antisemitism that I (mistakenly) believed to be sincere.[3] I replied in the same spirit, agreeing with you that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.[4]

Then I saw the butchery you had done to Antisemitism. The article included a sentence that we agree was off-topic, about holders of Israeli passports and visitors to Israel not being welcome in Saudi Arabia. But the source article, which was cited by name, was titled "Jews barred in Saudi tourist drive". The first sentence of the source article says, in bold letters, "Saudi Arabia is barring visits by Jews after launching a new visa scheme to try to attract more tourists." If you'll forgive the insult to the visually impaired, you would have to be blind to miss the fact that the source clearly says that Jews, not just Israelis, were barred from Saudi Arabia.

You deleted the sentence, and the source, and replaced it with some ignorant pabulum you seem to have learned by reading History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia. You copied the source from there, too, but didn't include the URL. I believe you didn't even bother to read the source, because you misrepresented what the source says. It does not say, as you wrote, that "As of 2014, Saudi Arabia is reportedly open to Jews other than those of Israeli nationality." It says that in 2014, the Saudi website said that neither Jews nor Israelis were welcome. After an outcry, including harsh comments from US Representative Anthony Weiner, the reference to Jews was removed but not the reference to Israelis. An unnamed source told a Saudi newspaper that Jews were welcome, but not Israelis or Zionists.

So you removed a useful source and misrepresented what a second source says, all so you could portray Saudi Arabia as more tolerant than it is. That's lying. It also makes me wonder what your agenda is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Malik Shabazz Thankyou for your apology. your use of the f-word did cause offence. It's inappropriate and violates WP: Don't be rude and WP: civility. I commend your determination to root out anti-Semitism, but swear words do not help in that quest. Wikipedia expects editors to be 'respectful and considerate'.

I do not 'pretend that anti-Semitism doesn't exist', and never have done. I lived in Israel for six months, I've seen the Auschwitz victims with their tattooed arms. Here, by way of example, is the text of a facebook post of mine from two years ago; '7 February 2016 at 17:21 Political Heroism (2) US journalist Varian Fry (1907-67) helped up to 4,000 Jews and other refugees, including cabinet ministers and prime ministers, to escape from Nazi-occupied France. He was awarded the Legion D'Honneur in 1967, and his achievements were turned onto a TV film in 2001, starring William Hurt.' You should note also the amendments I made two days ago to the 'Imperial Russia' section of the article.

Please, follow the evidence, instead of leaping to conclusions. And stay calm; 'quiet, calm, deliberation disentangles every knot' (Harold Macmillan)

You have here called me 'blind', a 'butcher' of the article, and a 'liar'. I can see no evidence for these allegations. I did read the article you refer to, dated 2014, from the Jerusalem Post. This information was more recent than the 2004 information which I deleted. I did not transfer the URL because my computer skills are limited; I have no idea what a URL is or how it works.Crawiki (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crawiki see URL. URL address for this discussion is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crawiki#Talk:Antisemitism". Hope's this helps. I saw earlier that you did not include URLs in some citations on the Presumption of guilt article. Rwood128 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Presumption of guilt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hellfire and Wrath of God

Fascism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bismarck

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Antisemitism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have already been blocked once for your persistent disruptive behaviour here. Repeating the same edit once more in the hope that this time no-one will notice and you can bludgeon it through is not a good idea. If you carry on like this, your next block is likely to be longer than 12 hours. RolandR (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I have to edit on Wikipedia on the basis that other editors are free to use foul language? It is intimidatory and therefore an erosion of free speech.

May I ask why you choose to think WP: Don't be rude and WP:civility are to be ignored in this matter? Please explain yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've already had your go at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC

no other voluntary organisation to which I presently contribute could possibly be so vile.Crawiki (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crawiki, you did receive an apology. It might have been better to have politely asked Malik Shabazz to remove the offending word, as he seems a reasonable person. Otherwise you needs to cultivate a thicker skin on Wikipedia. Rwood128 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crawiki. 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]

Hello, Crawiki. 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]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Gender equality for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Do No Harm (book).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page needs editing for tone; see WP:MOS for details on non-neutral language. Please add a Publication/Release section; see WP:NONFICTION for style guidelines on what should be included. Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're right about the GT article being too uncritical of her. Does she know about the other factors affecting climate change? I don't know, but the article does not address whether she does. Will poor countries be denied what rich countries have used to create their wealth? Any mention of this is stifled. Thank you for trying to balance this article. MartiniShaw (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Hello again. Some of the followers of Greta Thunberg often will, as you have said, argue black is white. I am aware of your interest in the Holocaust and Israel. I came across some news in relation to the Holocaust about Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion. I have added it to Hallam's bio in Wikipedia. The news is that in an interview, Hallam described the Holocaust as "just another fuckery in human history". He seems to be attempting to tell the Germans to forget about the Holocaust. The news is here on Die Zeit's English Language website. To give them credit, Extinction Rebellion Germany has distanced themselves from Hallam. I am expecting some fallout because of it, especially from Greta Thunberg's supporters, who often have a religious zeal. I would greatly appreciate it if could you follow this bio (of Hallam's). Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MartiniShaw (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Political stagnation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political stagnation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Global politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multipolar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have put the link United nations into at least 3 articles recently; should be United Nations. Maybe you can fix those and be more careful. Dicklyon (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see what needs fixing. Let me know if you'd rather I take care of it for you. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix... Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very good of you to fix this awful error. I am mortified by my own carelessness. Crawiki (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes errors multiply when you're spamming multiple copies of the same stuff across lots of articles. Not a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]