User talk:Mzmadmike

That has to be the most ridiculous deletion I have ever set eyes on! Rysin3 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've seen a lot worse. I take it my point wasn't grasped?Mzmadmike 06:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're an actual writer! :-)

Interesting. I Found Freehold in the Baen Free library.

Hmm Freehold looks a bit like Switzerland, or is that just me?

--Kim Bruning 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland, Canada, the early US, feudal Japan and the early Icelandic republic. Thanks for noticing. I didn't have as much room to develop the background as I'd like, and it's not the sort of thing that a lay character would bother with. If I get a chance to write a story involving academics, I'll stick some of that in.Mzmadmike 06:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with webcomics professionally. I am a well-established writer in fiction and nonfiction. It's blatantly obvious that NetOracle, his amusing nom de net aside, knows absolutely nothing about publication or media. Therefore, it might be best if he simply shuts up and sticks to subjects he might know. (I can't imagine what those are. His user page lists nothing substantive, and his history seems to indicate he's merely a deletion troll, but giving the benefit of the doubt, there may be subjects on which he's knowledgeable enough to comment.) The fact that Wikipedia CAN be edited by anyone, doesn't mean what amounts to vandalism should be tolerated or encouraged by any luser who wanders in off the web. I'm sure, with reflection, NetOraclewill concur.

My comments in blunt terms are here: http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/30062.html

I don't comment on early Peruvian history, because I know nothing about it. By admitting to knowing little to nothing about webcomics in general or specific, NetOracleis admitting his lack of credentials to give a "professional" (his term from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Webcomics opinion. To regain some small measure of credibility, he should stick to what he knows, whatever that might be.

It's pretty clear Wikipedia should change its tag to "The online AMATEUR encyclopedia anyone WITH KNOWLEDGE OF A SUBJECT can edit."Mzmadmike 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly incivil and rude. As cute as you might have tried to be, you are quite wrong.

Also, the notion that I don't know anything about publication or media is ludicrous. I work in publication and media, and happen to be damn good at it. I am quite familiar with the false impressions of notability that Internet buzz can generate, mainly because my job is to create it for the sake of traffic. I can spot when a small group of supporters cherry picks facts from the vast number of distinct web pages to push something of personal interest, whether for profit or entertainment. I happened to call out a non-notable article, and understandably, the subculture which put it there in the first place was upset at having to adhere to policy. The number of disinterested and impartial Wikipedians who offered a Keep argument was slim.

Wikipedia is not personal webspace, and is not a place to indiscriminately dump a collection of facts. I have yet to receive a reply of how The noob is notable, or matters in the overall scheme of things.

Moving harsh criticism off of Wikipedia (to livejournal, no less) is basically a de facto admission that what you have to say is a rant, and would not hold up in a civil and factually-driven environment. If you can handle the criticism of Wikipedia, and avoid argument ad hominem, then why did you take your rant elsewhere? Do you really want to engage in personal attacks and groupthink with your circle of Internet blog friends?

In the future, I would suggest that you read what people have to say, or you might be mistaken for the troll. The judging and critique of sources, and the notability they convey, is an expertise that is independent of the subject matter in question. One does not need to be an expert in webcomics to assess if a certain article meets established policy; in fact, it is important that readers not familiar with the subject at hand be able to assess its notability - how else can someone who reads Wikipedia for information understand the importance and significance of the subject?

If anyone is degrading Wikipedia's status as a reputable source of information, it is the people filling it with material of limited importance which appeals to only a very limited subculture. As I said earlier, I could have just as easily lit a match under the pile of cruft which has appeared as a result of the Idol series, any number of sci-fi series or books, or popular video games.

I would strongly suggest that you go to Godaddy, buy a domain and hosting, and establish your very own webcomic-focused wiki. On your own site, you are free to present the facts as you see fit, and ignore concerns of whether anybody really cares. If an article is only of interest to the people or specific subculture which created it, then it isn't notable. Every non-notable article established out of tribute by those who like the subject only erodes the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Many editors, myself included, are reluctant to jump into article space knowing that our contributions are going to be sitting aside fanpages and other such cruft of little interest to those not involved in writing or maintaining it. NetOracle 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet 95% of the webcomics you tagged for deletion are still up. I'm sure that frustrates you to no end. Was the slam at sci fi series a slam at me? I guess I have fans who've wikied a few of my books and characters. Perhaps you shouldn't try being so cute.Mzmadmike 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the notion that I don't know anything about publication or media is ludicrous. I work in publication and media, and happen to be damn good at it.

Um, obviously not, if you can imagine that "Tens of thousands" of readers isn't notable. Thanks for playing. And I notice all those webcomics that are still listed. It seems a majority of editors disagree with you. 0 for 2.Mzmadmike 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you think that a specious link between the Virginia Tech shooter and Islam would be "worth following." Much of the speculation appears to come from extreme right-wing blogs whose opinions on Islam can't even be pasted here. As I noted in the talk page for Cho, the speculation appeared to be derived from Cho signing one of his notes as "Ishmael" (son of Abraham in the Bible) as as the more Arabic (or possibly misspelled) form of "Ismael," who is still a character of Judaism and Christianity in addition to Islam. However, Cho actually signed his name as "Ismael-AX," which appears to me to be an online handle or gamertag. A conversion to Islam certainly would have been noted more thoroughly by the people surrounding him (especially by the people in our society), don'tcha think?Shabeki 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re your recent edit in SAR-21. The term "casing" is an industry term[1], [2] and more if you google the term. mark (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of Sunny Days In Britain In The 20th Century, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Xiaphias (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This:

By the logic you are demonstrating, I am not notable and my own entry should be recommended for deletion. Go ahead.

One of the things I despise about Wikipedia is that know-nothing nobodies with sticks up their ass will shift goalposts as many times as necessary to try to eliminate useful content, but will write reams of pages no one reads about "notable" things like Pikachu.

Frankly, it reeks of jealousy.

10,500 GHits, including a variety of manufacturers who reference reviews and analysis he's done. It sure would be nice if someone reading said reviews could ask, "So, who's this guy comparing this stuff and what are his credentials? Maybe Wikipedia can tell me."

Nah, the bandwidth could be better used for Expendable Crewman #3 in Episode 87.

Incidentally, have you noticed that so far you're on a largely solo crusade here?

And his book WAS professionally published in its first printing.

Now, I missed a part here, Qworty: What are YOUR credentials on anything? Survivalism? Writing? Reporting? Is there any reason YOU are notable and we should care what you think?

is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. Please don't make blanket personal attacks and please assume good faith. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to provide sources showing that Xlibris and Huntington post aren't "vanity" or "partner" presses. Or please provide a third party publisher who Rawles has had a book published by. I'll be happy to agree with you if you show that. Until then, he's self published. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,
I saw your comment and tried to clean up the Abrahamian match/aftermath/hearing section, according to how I understood the references. Comments welcomed.
Cheers, Gruen (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject Explosives has been launched. Feel free to sign up as a member and provide input in reference to priorities for improvement of Wikipedia's explosives-related articles. Thanks, EVCM (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Z. Williamson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson. Thank you.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Freehold (novel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freehold (novel). Thank you.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Freehold War, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freehold War. Thank you. Grsz¹¹ 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to let you know I replied on Talk:Flin Flon greenstone belt. Black Tusk (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that it is ofical? Can you please add a link that everybody is capable to verify it.--20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 55 Cancri f, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A8UDI 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mzmadmike! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jeff Jones (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What started off as several quick Anglicization edits has become a major edit project, one section at a time. I saw you were also making edits and are an experienced editor. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any concerns with how the updates are going or suggestions to improve it. I am told this article may appear on the main page soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, the sinebot is quick...I forgot to sign. Veriss (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as these are generally not helpful. Please do not use such pejoratives towards other users. Also, referring to Wikipedia as "Wikipee" is probably going to get on a lot of people's nerves, which might result in a witch hunt against you, which wouldn't be terribly helpful. The community is often extremely sticky about comparing Wikipedia to excrement. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Chinese whispers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Go West (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) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Z. Williamson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Morris (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) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fistmele, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and European (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) 11:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military of Bolivia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M79 (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) 11:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AAC Honey Badger PDW, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page H&K (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) 11:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to AR-15, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SudoGhost 13:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Helfers has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted 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}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Helfers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valdemar (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) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morning of the 26th? Even if you were on U.K. time, that's pretty... stfnal. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for updating the article at Jan Howard Finder. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reverted your edits and your addition of multiple citation tags which goes against best practice. Feel free to take your concerns to the talk page where I will be happy to address them. The material you cited is documented background content from the OWS parent article which is properly summarized here. While citations could certainly be added, tags are usually added for material that is questionable. Following that line of reasoning, you added tags for the statement that OWS held protests "focused on social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations". I don't think anyone would serious question this statement of fact, as it represents their entire platform. Further you changed this material by adding the words "allegations", which makes no sense as the material attributes the reason for their protests, not whether or not they are allegations. Your edits appear to be unnecessary. Again, take it to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Camp Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casco (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) 08:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mzmadmike. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:,320 Garrucha broken open for loading, 23 Mar 2016 .jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mzmadmike. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mzmadmike. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Canadian Mounted Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hague Convention (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) 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mzmadmike. I see that you made a series of rather angry and non-constructive edits to Talk:Nazi Party. I have removed those, as much for your own dignity as for anybody else’s sake. If you would like to revisit your points in less anger and remake any of them that you still feel are valid and relevant in a more civil way then you are welcome. If you do then I would ask you to do a few things:

• Please remember what the Talk page is for. It is for discussing how to improve the article. It is not a general discussion forum on the subject of Nazism.
• If you wish to propose changes to the article then you should provide reliable sources that support your proposed changes.
• Please understand that the historic post-war academic consensus is to put Nazism and other Fascist ideologies on the Right. Maybe check that you know what left and right wing actually mean before assuming that other people are using them incorrectly. Of course, you are free to dissent from this consensus but it makes sense to at least understand what it is. You can not just demand that 70+ years of scholarship be ignored to accommodate your own personal views. The only reason the page has the FAQ is that we get quite a few people making the same mistakes as you have. If you still doubt the FAQ is correct then please check the history books which are referenced in this article.
• Please remember that Wikipedia predominantly describes the academic consensus on all subjects. It also describes any major alternative views but it does not give them priority. The people you are getting angry with are just explaining the consensus. It is not something they have chosen themselves. They should not be abused for a decision that was taken long before the vast majority of them were born. (Maybe some people think that the Eiffel Tower is ugly. Even if it is ugly, there is no justice in shouting at random French people about it.)
• Please try to remember that just because something left or right wing is bad that doesn't mean that everything left or right wing is automatically bad because of that. Nobody is calling normal right wing people Hitler any more than anybody is calling normal left wing people Stalin. If this is what was making you angry then please just relax. Nobody is making that accusation. Think of it this way: Nazism is something that can happen when the right goes very badly wrong, just as Stalinism or Maoism are things that can happen to the left when it goes very badly wrong. Most normal people, left or right, are not in these categories.
• Please sign your comments. If you are making multiple replies in different places then please sign them all. (Use the signature button above the edit pane.) This will make it possible for people to reply to you on the page.

--DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits on The Survivalist. One of your edits added content, although just one line, but was tagged as a minor edit, which is not meant to be used for changes in content. In the future, please don't mark content-changing edits with the Minor edit checkbox so as not to confuse your fellow editors. Thanks! StarHOG (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm well they are in/going to court, of course, but until there's a ruling, your point is well taken. I don't know who made that edit, but I'll look into it. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mzmadmike. 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]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving a message on a biased Facebook timeline to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. MrClog (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing the situation, the article was procedurally deleted because it didn't include a claim of significance. It was not a judgment call about your significance. I've looked at the article at the time it was deleted, and this was true. The article made no mention about you being "award winning" or "bestselling" or otherwise significant. Had you simply handled the situation like a mature adult, this minor thing could have been easily fixed and everyone would have moved on, your article undisturbed. Since you instead chose to incite your fanbase on Facebook, it's looking like you're about to be banned from Wikipedia, and your article deleted per a community discussion, a decision which will actually be binding, unlike the initial procedural deletion. You really self-destructed on this one. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Michael Z. Williamson could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the legal threats were withdrawn, the appaling personal attacks made by this user warrant an indefinite block. I came here to block for the personal attacks and saw the NLT block was already there. I will being going back and revdeling some of these.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion here is that this user is banned by the community. Jonathunder (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, is there any way to alienate most of the human race you didn't follow? You're a bit marginal, but on the notable side of marginal (but not for the IMDb listing; heck, I'm in the IMDb), and I have said so. And I'm a SJW, Quaker social democrat and proud friend of lots of GLBT folks, as well as an avid reader and reviewer (ask Toni or Eric) of Baen books. People are complicated. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]