Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. gnu57 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to COVID-19 pandemic, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, SpaceX Starship, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the truly bizarre "fiction set in the 21st-century article". This article is bizarre since the very earliest articles in Wikipedia were created in 2001. I am thinking about this and I think we should have two articles, maybe three, but century break down makes no sense at all. We should have something on "fictions set in the near future, now to us past" and "fictions set in the near future, still future at present" and then maybe "fction set in an ambiguous near future". Right now we draw a truly arbitary line at January 1, 2001. There is no real justification for drawing that line. Now that people can actually write historical fiction set in the 21st-century (probably not common yet, but soon it will start to pop up, and I am sure some works of such exist) We need to rethink this whole concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackholeWA. I tried pinging you here, but for some reason it failed. (I recall reading or being told that a user can be pinged using edit summaries, but I seem to have messed up with the implementation.) Anyways, I was trying to ping you to give you a heads up and see if you wanted to check if your proposed move request follows WP:NATURALNESS and give a statement saying why you think it does. I have yet to check given that I didn't consider it until now despite citing the criteria in the last RM. (Whoops...) If not, then just let me know as I am likely going to remember to follow-up on my comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can ping other users from the past PM, in accordance with WP:CANVASS In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. – In order to increase representativeness of the "attack" RM. I've extracted the names of participating editors, and removed names of those already commented (perhaps not all): 웬디러비, 5440orSleep, 777burger, A'kwell, Amakuru, Anachronist, Antonio Basto, Bear6811Wiki, Beland, Ben8142, Berchanhimez, Bodney, BusterD, Calthinus, Casprings, Chrisahn, Coin, Crouch, Swale, Czello, Darryl Kerrigan, Des Vallee, Dlthewave, DolyaIskrina, Dswitz10734, dylanvt, EDG 543, Ekpyros, El C, Elijahandskip, EnPassant, Featous, Gam3, Goszei, Gouncbeatduke, GreenMeansGo, Guy Macon, Haha169, Hansen Sebastian, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, IHateAccounts, IP75, Jared.h.wood, Jayron32, Jmill1806, K.e.coffman, Kizor, Kyyl0, LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Liz, LordPeterII, Lukan27, MaGioZal, Malcolm L. Mitchell, MelanieN, Most Humble and Obedient Servant, Ohconfucius, Plumber, Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, Psychloppos, Qexigator, QuercusOak, Ramaksoud2000, Red Slash, Ribbet32, Robertiki, scope_creep, Seven Pandas, Shearonink, Slatersteven, soibangla, Somedifferentstuff, StAnselm, Super Dromaeosaurus, Swordman97, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Tataral, The Fiddly Leprechaun, The Four Deuces, Trillfendi, Tsavage, Vowvo, VQuakr, Wingedserif, Wollers14, WWGB, XOR'easter, Yallahalla, Z22

Good point. I believe I will do this. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackholeWA, I received your ping and have reviewed the current RM discussion. As you may know, I have supported/proposed the title: 2021 Attack on the United States Capitol since around Jan. 15. [[1]] After reviewing the current discussion, I do not think 'attack' will gain consensus at this time. Editors are simply tired and burnt out from the constant RM discussions since Jan. 6. RMs on insurrection and riot have both failed and this RM is basically a choice between 'attack' and the current title. There are currently discussions on a moratorium against title changes. I would strongly recommend that you withdraw your RM due to the above and the disruption to the article, We can maybe request that El C place a 2 week sanction on RMs. You could then propose a new RM around Feb 21. Ping me with your thoughts. Best, IP75 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IP75: Hi. I am also increasingly unconvinced that attack will gain consensus, but I am also unconvinced that withdrawing the current discussion and attempting again in a few weeks would improve potential outcomes. Doing so might just seem to draw out discussion, as would forestalling the current discussion - only to open it again in two weeks - seem perfunctory. Honestly, I am disinclined to halt the current discussion now while it is still underway, even if it is seeming unlikely to result in a successful move. We may just have to stay with the current title until someone can present a phrasing or rationale that can inspire more editor support. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my rationale for waiting, in addition to the above, is that when the impeachment trial starts on Feb 9, there will be more focus on the planning and incitement by T***P and associates. In the previous RM, some editors noted that 'riot' did not communicate the planning of the attack. But if you want to proceed, when I have more energy I will think about how to address editors concerns and explain why 'attack' is the best choice. Best, IP75 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aseleste was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at List of solved missing person cases. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Per WP:NEVENT, the event is a routine event that does not have a significant lasting effect, so it should not be a standalone article. However, the text here could be merged into List of solved missing person cases as everything looks good apart from notability. If you need help merging, you can ask me.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Death of Nóra Quoirin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Death of Nóra Quoirin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackholeWA! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackholeWA. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Death of Nóra Quoirin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just read your post on WP:NPOV/N after coming across (and reverting) this edit. It strikes me as remarkable, since that edit, without any sources and accompanied by the edit summary you provided is a good example of POV-pushing. Please don't do that again. Kleuske (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske:I know that I am not going to get traction with respect to Crossroads, as Wikipedia does not provide particularly adequate redress for certain forms of source selection lawyering and targeted editing (though I thought it might at least be worth a shot), but at the very least please refrain from using my talk page to tell me off for making the attempt. Irrespective of the virtues of any particular piece of content, the agenda they display is clear and it's a poor testament to the community here that they will continue to be enabled indefinitely. Unfortunately I don't have the free time to individually dispute every offense against trans dignity with a battery of research and source mining to justify small wording choices, which is the reality that civil POV pushing campaigns rely upon. Cheers. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I see someone pushing a particular POV, I will adress that on their respective talk-pages. You are no exception. Your edit was not a "small wording choice", the previous version was not an "offense against trans dignity" and you have failed to cite any of the battery of research you claim exists. It was an unsourced claim, from a very specific POV. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to dispute your revert, at least not at the moment. What do you want me to do? I won't apologize for questioning Crossroads' edits or my attempted changes to Human as neither were inaccurate. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have two options:

1. cite some of the abundant literature you claim exists to support your claims, or
2. leave it alone.

As a parting remark, both were inaccurate. Kleuske (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be petty. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Related to the point by Kleuske. I agree you BlackholeWA that some of the wording on the LGB Alliance article could use some tweaking. Unfortunately I'm not so sure of the phrasing needed myself to make suggested changes. If you want to take those suggestions to the article's talk page, along with sources supporting why it should be worded differently I would very likely be supportive of proposed changes. I've had success in doing this with getting one of the founders names added back into the article, and I've opened discussions on the talk page for a couple more who should also be listed in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:06, 2 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) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Offense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attack. 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) 06:07, 27 October 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) 01:23, 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]