Hello Proxima Centauri, I have removed the entries in this category, as this seems a strange way of creating links. wikilinks are generally sufficient. Inwind (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and footnotes, Wikipedia's house style is to have the footnote follow immediately after the punctuation of the sentence or clause it supports, without an intervening space. DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raif Badawi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kate Allen. 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, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary of your recent edits to Charles Saatchi, "She [Heather Harvey] works for a charity that works with domestic violence victims and understands the subject", in my response to my edit summary reverting your original edit ("just the opinion of someone with an agenda having no first hand knowledge"): She works for a charity that works with domestic violence victims reinforces my point that she is someone with an agenda; and while she may understand the subject of domestic violence, there is no evidence she has knowledge of the subject of the article (Charles Saatchi), or of the facts of the event she is commenting on. --hulmem (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you've likely received the WP:Ping on this matter, I'm alerting you here on your talk page to this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the Honey Talk page, your edits follow WP:NOTADVOCATE, are not consensus and are off topic. As you have reverted the same edits more than 3 times, I ask that you not re-edit that section on honey, and so notify that WP:3RR applies. --Zefr (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bill Cosby 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:

• com|publisher=USA Today|accessdate=2 May 2015|date=May 1, 2015}}</ref> <ref>There is a suggestion [sexual assault allegations against Cosby are given insufficient prominence in this article and that

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buxus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. 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) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic sexual abuse cases in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal. 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) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grace Dieu Manor School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadism. 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) 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proxima Centauri. You have new messages at Talk:Ellington, Northumberland.
Message added 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why aye pet! (Or possibly why no, pet!) DBaK (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Carey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian. 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) 10:08, 10 October 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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix the problems that you introduced into the article today? I'd like to preserve the addition you intended to make -- but something went wrong, and if it isn't fixed I'll have to revert it all. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, material from a RationalWiki article got accidentally copied here. i appreciate your tactful comment. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Education of the British Royal Family and the heated debate that is ongoing at this new article. LavaBaron (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)-[reply]

Hi, in this edit you introduced a reference "ref name=K.P.Wood04/01/2016/" but did not define it. This is producing an error message in the reflist on the page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denomination. 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) 10:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting thread in Reddit that I came across while googling for Ark Encounter attendance: I visited Ken Ham's Ark Encounter on opening weekend. AMA. I had been wondering how it would do and it appears is that the place is not that interesting to be at to begin with. It's neither a theme park nor a "museum", but a strange combination of both. Who would want to be indoors at a theme park? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gabriella Taylor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriella Taylor 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/Gabriella Taylor 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. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Celestial companionship award
	Presented in honor of your endeavors in (cyber)space, and to commemorate your namesake. May you boldly go where no Wikipedian has gone before! Altamel (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any weather reports lately? Jim1138 (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Health Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV. 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) 09:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholson challenge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Appleby. 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) 12:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In several places you have added statements of opinion as if they were facts, e.g. in National Health Service and Premiership of Theresa May. Please try to make sure in future that you attribute any statements of opinion to whoever was making them, e.g. "John Smith in the Guardian wrote that X is true" rather than "X is true." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try to attribute opinions but sometimes it's hard to tell what's fact and what's opinion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added an attribution. Still frankly I feel so many people have criticised May's grammar school plan calling it controversial is objective. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at National Health Service#Investment, funding and efficiency and read the source again for the suggestion that either funding must increase or the service must be cut. You're right, the source definitely states the opinion of the Royal College of Physicians though I think other sources expressed the same opinion. I have been paying attention to attribution but I'm sorry, I overlooked that one. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proxima Centauri. 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]

I've been thinking about moving all the NHS England stuff from the NHS page to the English NHS page for a while, but just haven't found the time! Thanks so much for so beautifully incorporating it there! Zeromonk (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2016 (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 National Health Service (England) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BiasBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced a bias towards Donald Trump. It is as follows:

· On the First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency page, your bias had to be solved by others. (help). ( Edit | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think you made a mistake too, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, BiasBot (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(Words and phrases like "massive" and phrases like "half-a-million alone" are biased. I understand everyone has an opinion, but just try to stay netural. I fixed your bias by the way. Just a bit of a joke with the whole format.)

I think you're a human pretending to be a bot. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed you often insert two or even three spaces after full stops in edits you make to articles. I'm pretty sure the standard practice is to insert one space only. Please bear this in mind, or let me know if I am wrong. 82.4.168.57 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any rule, as far as I know single or double spacing after a full stop is OK. Three spaces is certainly too much, if that happens I've overlooked it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Health Service (England), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Appleby. 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) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Personal Independence Payment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MS Society. 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) 10:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Her Majesty's Prison Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Dawson. 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) 10:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proxima, you may have missed the discussion at the talk page. The amount of content you have added to the page goes way beyond WP:UNDUE, and seems to be a collation of every negative article you can find about the topic, instead of a balanced summary of the topic. I suggest you discuss at the talk page rather than reverting. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheMagnificentist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mein Kampf, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - TheMagnificentist 13:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a look at the above article's page? We are discussing whether a move to a different spelling for her first name might be in order. I don't understand how the current spelling gained preference over "Mariam" or "Maryam".--Quisqualis (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the spelling either. Sorry I can't help. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gabriella Taylor 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. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- important- but how do you justify putting this one highly political statement here without mentioning all failures of LAs to fulfil their statutory duties. Whats the cunning plan. Are you just parking this here while you provide a full article on Failures of right wing regimes to provide tor the needs of the poor in thee United Kingdom? It can't remain here unless equivalent material is added that will double the length of the article. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got sources for those other statutory failures. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Her Majesty's Prison Service, I noticed that the "Criticism" section had grown from being non-existent just over a year ago until just before I edited it today. I did a word count and calculated that the criticism section accounted for 58% of the article's content. It read as a gradual collation of every single recent article about the effects of austerity on prisons, frequently criticising current government policy without giving them a voice. Even taking into account the recent publicity about disorder and riots in prisons, the article was in need of urgent change.

I realise that most of these edits were yours. Judging by some of the comments posted above, you may have done similar edits to other articles. I'm writing these suggestions as to how this work can be improved:

• Wikipedia has a policy of neutral point of view. That doesn't mean that all opposing voices have to be treated equally; indeed this can sometimes result in false equivalence. Opposing views should be shown with some idea of how prominent those views are.
• An article should always try to show the 'big picture'. It's so easy to zoom in and dwell on the negative side of things, and as human beings this is something we are hard-wired to do. However, if something is actually doing an acceptable job, this ought to be mentioned before discussing its failings.
• An article should not show undue bias towards recent events. If an organisation was founded in 1917, the article should reflect its 100-year history and not be dominated by stories from 2017.
• When adding content through repeated small edits, consider what their combined effect on the article is.

Hope this helps. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You clearly haven't listened to what I have been trying to tell you. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proxima Centauri. 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]

I mentioned your recent edit to this article here. Kablammo (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welfare state in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deprivation (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) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Universal Credit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Law enforcement in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Police Federation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proxima Centauri

Here's a muffin to thank you for your work on United Kingdom government austerity programme. I know my edits on this article must seem a bit deletionist at times, so I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the effort you go to finding new sources.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welfare state in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dave Thompson (police officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

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

Hello, Proxima Centauri. 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]

Would you like to join? It's been pretty dead for years, but you seem to be getting stuck in. Maybe its a place we can discuss some of the difficulties. It's easy to write about individual trusts and hospitals, but the bigger issues are more problematic.Rathfelder (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like me to do? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Domestic violence in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP (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) 07:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Health Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 28 September 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to stop reading this. But i would not recommend it. Our new spam code is impossible to stop. We can change our device IDs and IP addresses in a flinch with custom VPNs that don't leak. We have specialized account creators and a new Macro that will attack Wikia at full force.

You might think this will be another empty threat. We suprised you last time and destroyed your whole site, taking you four days to rebuild. Now we have the power to cause a Fourth Cross-Wiki War.

WikiMedia, Fandom, Wikia, all will be targets. You can not stop Daybreak.

I am Noxid, the leader of Daybreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA80:C140:F408:7DAB:5EBA:9B1A (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2020 (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]

Dear Proxima Centauri,

you recently blanket reverted and edit of mine with the summary: "If you think so much should be taken out please discuss it on the talk page." [1]

I guess you are confusing my edits with other edits that attempt to remove large parts of actual content from the article (e.g. Fredparker), as you have opened a section on such edits on Talk. If so, you ocmpletely misunderstand my edit. My reverted edit actually consists of three different issues that just came together in this one edit:

1. The largest part is removing again the additions of User:Wouldjesuswritethis, who - under the summary "accuracy of facts" - is bent on making a big issue out of the RZIM board not making the identities of their members public. I have discussed this removal at Talk:Ravi_Zacharias#Notable_or_undue_weight?. I initially did not aim at remove the entire issue but merely integrating it better, avoiding repetitons and attributing the criticism as such (and not fact). [2] After reviewing the matter, I found out that the issue was based only on a single source. I suspected that this was a case of WP:UNDUE weight and hence removed it alltogether [3], explaining myself on talk. Obviously, I would have no problem in returning to my previous version, if that is the consensus.

Apparently, this all went right over the head of User:Wouldjesuswritethis, who then returned and reinstated his original, unacceptable version.May I also point out that that editor, has a certain history of this. Take a look at this revert. This "twisting a statement into its opposite" is even more obvious here.

2. I also removed an entire section titled "Fallout and Closure of RZIM", recently added by an IP user [4]. The reasons for this are that it was not only unsourced but it also contained no additional information beside RZIM clearing "all data and information" from their website. The "Open Letter" was already mentioned and quoted from as was the UK branch cutting their ties. The reaction of RZIM Canada was also already included.

3. Finally, there is one little change that probably upset you the most: the word "rape". I removed it from the intro and section headers [5] not because I somehow oppose or deny rape allegation against RZ but because as of now the article doesn't support it. Right now the only other occurence of the word "rape" in the article is a report from Christianity Today that

One woman told the investigators that "after he arranged for the ministry to provide her with financial support, he required sex from her." She called it rape.

IMHO that is too small a basis for the other occurences of the word. Remember that the introduction and the headers are supposed to be only summaries of the actual content of the article.

Now, I have very little reason to believe that a predator like RZ has not raped anyone or that nobody has accused him of actual rape. I am almost certain that the reports are somewhere out there. But until they are included in the article, the intro cannot summarize what's not in the article.

I hope this helps in understanding my edit a little bit better, so that we can avoid any further blanket reverting.

Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Curbon7. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Matt Gaetz, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is regarding the lede of the Matt Gaetz article. The statement you keep trying to shoehorn in ("Gaetz has been involved in a number of controversies including alleged sexual relationships with minors") does not belong in the lede, and is completely unsourced anyways. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Inexpiable. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Capital punishment in Oklahoma seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Inexpiable (talk) 11:57, 8 November 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) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cockaigne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin culture.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keir Starmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [6] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, it is not too long for a short description Wesoree (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it if you didn't comment on my behalf. Start a discussion on the talk page, and I can comment there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the talk page. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 vote of confidence in the parliamentary leadership of Boris Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign secretary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop adding poor grammar NATO content with unformatted citations to this article? That Finland has applied for NATO membership is already included in the 21st century section. TylerBurden (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Death of Stuart Lubbock has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't undertaand this, I always clearly mark copied material as a quote and give a source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DeFacto. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on List of "-gate" scandals and controversies, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! -- DeFacto (talk). 12:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Premiership of Liz Truss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Suella Braverman. Thank you. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this and this, which are spurced from The Guardian snd The Guardian is certainly reliable. Please do not pretend otherwise. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Proxima Centauri, yes. And yes, The Guardian is considered to be generally reliable, although per WP:RSP Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics, so using for such needs a great deal of care.

That's not quite the point here though, the point is that even The Guardian doesn't support what you wrote. It doesn't support that she resigned over alleged 'security breaches'. It doesn't say that's why she resigned, it uses that phrase when it says that she is under pressure to answer fresh questions about alleged 'security breaches'. Talking about why she resigned it says she fell on her own sword over a 'technical infringement of the rules' after using a personal email address to send an official document, which is from her resignation letter where there is no mention of security breaches at all. You need to be more careful with your interpretations. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jake Berry. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Evening Standard, which I sourced^[1] is reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Proxima Centauri, you made this edit though. Where is Berry is strongly criticlal [sic] of Suella Braverman's security breach supported (you put it in Wiki's voice, so it must be supported as an incontrovertible fact) in that Evening Standard cite? The closest it gets is when it says he has claimed Suella Braverman committed 'multiple breaches of the ministerial code'. It nowhere mentions "security breach" other than when describing a Labour reaction. It says she admitted to a 'technical infringement' of the rules. Perhaps it time to stop trawling the web for negative comments about Tory MPs, and re-interpreting them into Wiki articles, until you understand how to apply Wiki's policies? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proxima Centauri,

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Please keep the following policies in mind:

• Edit warring is prohibited; WP:DR provides advice.
• Restoring challenged content in biographies of living persons is subject to WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 27 November 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Conservative Party (UK) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 16:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2023 in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of us want this, This is Paul wants it as well as I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1135135065&oldid=1135133963 DeFacto has ben edit warring. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you pasted the full external link to a policy page.

Inside Wikipedia, even in edit summaries, that long link can be replaced with a normal Wiki link to the page and section using the standard link syntax, like this [[WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper]] - which appears as a clickable link like this WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Or better still, most policy and guideline sections give a shortcut at the top-right somewhere next to the section heading - the one you cited gives a shortcut of WP:NOTNEWS, which can be used directly as a Wiki link like this [[WP:NOTNEWS]], which appears as a clickable link like this WP:NOTNEWS.

I hope you'll agree that makes links a lot easier to add and a lot clearer to read. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Rishi Sunak (made after I reverted a previous edit of yours) has been reverted by another editor as out-of-scope, which I agree with. However, I have moved your contribution to the more appropriate Premiership_of_Rishi_Sunak#Dominic_Raab; you may wish to improve my rather basic addition. Regards, Bazza (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have previously been warned about much the same conduct as this edit, I am imposing the following restriction on you, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator and in accordance with the Arbitration Commitee Contentious Topics procedure:

You are banned from restoring any text to a biography of a living person, or text which relates to a living person to any other article, that has been reverted by another editor. The only exception is for edits which are obvious vandalism. Any violations will result in blocks or other sanctions.

This restriction is indefinite but I will be willing to reconsider after three to six months. You can appeal it by following the appeals procedure. If you are unclear about whether a given edit would violate this restriction, you can ask me and I will be happy to provide clarification. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Michael Philpott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Israeli culture, has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 15 § Israeli culture, until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 13:41, 15 November 2023 (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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]