Hello, MiztuhX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

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.

Andy Russell (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English, Spanish and Without You

Gus Arnheim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English and Spanish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andy Russell (singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 1953 || ''[[House Party (short) '' || Andy Russell - Singer ||

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Russell (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Stork Club. 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) 09:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Andy Russell (singer) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (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.

The Stork Club (1945 film)

added links pointing to Andy Russell and Mary Young

It Never Rains in Southern California

added a link pointing to Andy Russell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andy Russell (singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 1955 || ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQfsxguUqkg ¡Qué bravas son las costeñas!...] (Coastal women are so temperamental!... || Tony López || Mexican production, directed by [[Roberto_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andy Russell (singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 1955 || ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQfsxguUqkg ¡Qué bravas son las costeñas!...] (Coastal women are so temperamental!... || Tony López || Mexican production, directed by [[Roberto
• ></ref>. Sings: "Soñarás" and "Soy el mago de los sueños"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Russell (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Bamba. 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) 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Little Church of the West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy Russell. 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) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Russell (singer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Azteca and Roberto Rodríguez. 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) 17:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Russell (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Reid. 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) 09:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Cranz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orfeon. 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) 09:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reconquista (Mexico), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian, Indigenous and Iberian. 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) 09:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I reverted your edits to Battle of the Alamo and I wanted to explain why. The article is attempting to strike the balance of neutral point of view, and specifically inserting Santa Anna's opinion - even if it is attributed as his opinion - tilts the balance a little at this particular place in the article. Inserting a quote and then editing out certain words doesn't actually make it more NPOV. If you think the article balance is inappropriate as is, can we discuss in more detail on the article talk page? Karanacs (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently nominated Battle of San Patricio for FA status (nom here). Would you care to take a look at the article? There aren't many of us on WP who are that knowledgeable about this era. I'd appreciate any feedback you might have. (Battle of Agua Dulce is going to be my next FA candidate, so opinions on that also welcome!) Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2015 (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. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came back, but I found that many other editors around wikipedia are just as bad as the ones who made me take a long hiatus to rethink being involved the first time.

It's ugly out there and there are a LOT of people acting in bad faith. :( Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice to see you again!!! I am sorry to hear that, but don't lose faith. Not knowing your specific situation, I can only say please be patient, continue to make suggestions, and try your best to work with other editors to reach a common goal. Wikipedia will always be here, so if consensus can't be reached now, work on other articles in the meantime. Your contributions and input are valuable; but sometimes other editors just need time to process new information, ideas, and perspectives. Good luck! MiztuhX (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, and instead of civility, I was subjected to someone who went around block-shopping and then someone who (I suspect related to the others) actually impersonated me and left fake comments trying to get an even more extended block. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Russell (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glen Miller. 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) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (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 Tseung Kwan O was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

More references are needed to verify the claims made in the article.

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:Della russell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! MiztuhX, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MiztuhX. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MiztuhX. 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, MiztuhX. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Della russell".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MiztuhX. 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]

Hello, MiztuhX. 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! 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) 00:09, 19 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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with...tactfully ending a conversation with an abusive editor on the Superman (1978) Talk Page. Should I just stop answering the editor? Thank you.

MiztuhX (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at that talk page, and I see only one editor there who could possibly be regarded as "abusive". That editor persists in plugging the same points repeatedly, seems unable to hear what other editors say if it doesn't fit in with their view, fails to accept that consensus is clearly against them. Bizarrely, they even make statements which everyone concerned must be able to see are false, such as denying having made any edits to the page, although they clearly did. If that editor continues in the same way there is a risk that they may be blocked from editing to prevent further waste of everyone's time. My advice therefore is to drop the stick and move on. JBW (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. It has been enlightening and reassuring. Regards, MiztuhX (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of things which have been said subsequently, I think my attempt at irony here was too subtle for you. Look back at the page in question, read what was said there, and see which one editor "persists in plugging the same points repeatedly, seems unable to hear what other editors say if it doesn't fit in with their view, fails to accept that consensus is clearly against them". Also see which one editor "den[ied] having made any edits to the page". Since it seems you may have missed my point, let me spell it out: it was you. I have just read the administrative action review which you started, and, on the basis of both these incidents, my advice to you is that if you can't learn to just drop a matter when it is obvious that you are going to get nowhere with it, then before long you will be blocked indefinitely. That's just advice, and of course it's up to you whether you choose to take it. JBW (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your attempt at irony, my advice to you: Adminship is not a game WP:ANOT#GAME MiztuhX (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, and we are deadly serious when we say your attitude, behavior, and approach to other editors is not and has not been appropriate. You are drawing ever closer to being indefinitely blocked from editing. Please heed the advice you have been given. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite everyone's best efforts to advise Miztuh and warn them, they have gone back to editing the article and added another citation tag over the budget, despite being told not to do so and to actually find other sources that verify it rather than just disputing it again without proper evidence. I have removed the tag and reformatted the page numbers they added to a cite (which I have fixed in the ref and I am thankful for, though they should have been added properly from the get go), and I encourage Miztuh to just WP:Let it go with the whole budget thing. We have multiple sources verifying it already. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Superman (1978 film) can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific; your remarks are much too general, especially when apparently accusing somebody of harassment, which, in itself, might be viewed as a veiled threat. And I have been nothing but respectful, collaborative and polite, unlike other editors. The problem is that many editors can't seem to handle disagreement in a constructive manner, and it's okay to agree to disagree. MiztuhX (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Superman (1978 film). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Do NOT continually revert other editors just because you don't agree with them. My edits were to improve the article and allowed and your continued reverts to preserve your own preferred version are becoming quite disruptive and are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MiztuhX (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking that my block be reviewed because there was a discrepancy in the timing of our respective replies. I was writing a reply to Trailblazer101 when Bbb23 was posting his original decision. When I posted the reply, I was able to read the decision that I was close to being banned. I logged out. It was only a few hours later when I logged back in that I became aware of the second decision that my account was banned, which I believe Bbb23 mistook as a challenge to his original decision. In closing, I did not reply to challenge or provoke Bbb23's decision; my reply was directed as a reply to Trailblazer101, but the timing of our respective posts prevented my awareness of Bbb23's decision, otherwise I would not have replied. MiztuhX (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was published at 13:15:32; the message that led to the block was published 13:18:15 using the reply tool that probably automatically resolved the edit conflict. I find your explanation convincing: You didn't see the final warning.

Still, the behavior that led to the block does justify a block, even if there had been no warning. I recommend waiting for the 48 hours to expire and simply not to continue the behavior that led to the block.

I have removed the text "after being warned" from the block description as a matter of fairness/accuracy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree on a technical basis. Since the original decision was a warning and it has been recognized that an edit conflict was the cause of the discrepancy, then the original decision of a warning should be honored in the name of fairness and accuracy. Issuing a block retroactively has no justification if the original administrator already determined that a warning was sufficient. This only leads to conflicting claims between the two administrators and confusion with regards to WP rules since they appear to not be applied equitably. MiztuhX (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I understand that under[WP:TOOLMISUSE : Misuse of Admiminstrative Tools, that you are unable to “reverse the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.”

May we consult @Bbb23: to explain the situation and see if he would be willing to reinstate the warning due to these extenuating circumstance?

MiztuhX (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody asked me, and I'm in no position to take administrative action myself, but as someone who has no previous experience with this editor (I'm reading this thread through pure gnomish happenstance) and has to judge them purely on the basis of their response to this situation, I see some things to suggest that they be given the benefit of the doubt. They are keeping their cool, making a reasonably sound argument under policy and pragmatics regarding the blocking policy, and honestly, nobody could be a fan of their first block: I'm sure it would mean something to them to see it noted in the block log that the block was lifted because it wasn't found absolutely necessary at this juncture.

Mind you, I was not able to find the original behaviour/comment that was deemed a PA or harassment. Possibly because Mitzuh's posts run toward the fulsome and even wall-of-texty side of things--said respectfully, as I had a similar tendency as a new editor and still tend to run a little over the average. But the rest of their discussion style seems cogent and mostly polite. Little hints of IDHT, and the "I always try to discuss collegially--unlike some other people..." sentiment is rarely a good luck. But on the whole, I think they're trying. I might end up eating crow once I actually see what they said, but at the moment it looks to me like they are trying. For whatever a random commenting community's member's thoughts are worth. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think your ping of Bbb23 would've worked as you added it after your original comment, ping only works when you include a signature Indagate (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Bbb23 (talk) to review recent posts.MiztuhX (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (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) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]