Hi there, recently you edited the page La Luz del Mundo, which at the time has only 3 editors working on it. We have been trying to make the page as neutral as possible but have gotten into certain disputes. One of the editors accuses two of us of trying to make the page a publicity page for the church, which is false. Anyway, this editor reverts most edits to the Controversy section (which I recently changed to Criticism according to WP:CRIT). Two of us believe that a source (The Revista Academica) is not reliable, but the other editor insists that is. Please have a look at the talk page Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo, particularly this section Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#RfC:_Is_Revista_Academica_a_reliable_source.3F and give us your input. Thank you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Another editor has begun to edit La Luz del Mundo article. He came on the talk page as a 3O editor and oddly requested opinions from all three current editors of that page. After receiving only two, he oddly accused the only editor that has edited multiple articles, Ajaxfiore, of having a single purpose account based on my comment that RidjalA and I mainly edit the LLDM article...which is really strange since that would make me and RidjalA the real WP:SPA's (Note:I have been attempting to spread out to other articles). This is his comment on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=522433367&oldid=522431560 before he proceeded to section blank the following:

1. Half the Controversy and Critism section
2. The architecture section
3. The discrimination section
4. The history section
5. removed sourced material from the Belief and Practices section
6. removed most of the section lead
7. Changed the infobox by removing sourced information

I honestly do not know what to do. RidjalA isn't responding and Ajaxfiore mentioned that he "quite" the article. You were the first thing that came to mind after I alerted RidjalA of what happened (on his talk page). What should I do? What can be done? How can I get RidjalA and Ajaxfiore to return to the article to edit it? Fordx12 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RidjalA responded to me here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RidjalA&diff=522571033&oldid=522568288 Apparently he threatened to ban me and says that the 3O editor is an admin and PhD dissertations are not viable wiki sources...one of this makes sense...I really need someone to help me out here. I contacted you because you edited in the article's talkpage. Fordx12 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is User:RobertRosen your 3O editor? He is not an admin.
• WP:Identifying reliable sources says of PhD dissertations: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
• It looks like dispute resolution has been initiated. There are editors there who can help the involved parties come to an agreement. A word of advice: the goal there is to resolve the content issues, not hash out interpersonal disputes, so try not to get dragged into accusations and counter-accusations.TheBlueCanoe 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are generally four warnings then a block request. If you had bothered to read the IP's talk, you might have noticed a communication, followed by a fourth warning then a block. Cheers Jim1138 (talk)

TheBlueCanoe,

You recently voted in the Arbitration Committee Elections. In accordance to the Request for comment on the election process, you must have made 150 edits in the main article space of Wikipedia before November 1st in order to be eligible to vote. According to a recent count, you only have 109 such edits.

If you believe we are in error, or there are other circumstances, such as a number of edits across multiple accounts, please let us know.--Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your help with my first page. I really appreciate the changes you made. Hope you have a wonderful holiday season with family and friends. Robert Michael Murray 23:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's great to see new editors creating quality work. Merry Christmas to you! TheBlueCanoe 18:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue Canoe. Today several edits appeared on my watchlist by a new editor, User:Lostromantic. When I checked his contribution log, I found a couple things that gave me pause. First, he's almost exclusively editing articles I created. And secondly, one of his very first edits after creating an account was to leave you an apparently unprovoked, abusive talk page comment. Just wondering if you know anything about this. I've had the experience of being wikihounded before, and I don't take kindly to it—especially from people with an apparent predilection for userspace harassment. Homunculus (duihua) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about it. My guess is that the talk page thing was in response to this edit, where I restored some information that an IP address (possibly the same guy) had deleted. If you want to edit on contentious topics you just need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. I'm fine with that. But I understand you don't like being stalked. Let me know if he gives you more trouble, eh? TheBlueCanoe 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Are you wanting to hold the Yu Zhou DYK for a certain date? Rcej (Robert) – talk 02:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'm starting realize how convoluted disputes can get. Anyway, I think all the real disagreements on the content issues have been sorted, and I don't think there's a single thing that a neutral observer could possibly have a problem with in that article at this point. The DYK is probably good to go whenever it's approved. It could be nice to hold it to the anniversary on February 6th, but I don't know how to request that, and I'm not very picky. You seem like a regular at DYK, so you probably know better than me what we should do.

I must have driven through Shreveport, but unfortunately I don't make it down there much anymore. Now I live in a land of ice and snow.TheBlueCanoe 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Death of Shane Todd, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ...William 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Shane Todd 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/Death of Shane Todd 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 template from the top of the article. ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ebor (horse) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ebor (horse) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just posted some other options, and look forward to hearing your thoughts. TheBlueCanoe 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grey Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pembroke (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) 12:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey the article's looking heaps better now! I'm pretty new at having a wiki account so still trying to work out how it all works. Cheers, Haminoon (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting the article started. Keep it up! TheBlueCanoe 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not sure it's the best way to contact you,nor if I'ù talking to the right person, cos I'm a beginner on wikipedia. I'm french and actually try to edit some content on the Falun Gong's page. I found the english page very interesting, so I directly translate part of this page to the French Falun Gong's page. Some wikipedia editors are... kind of angry, talks about controversial point of view, and so on? I don't know what to answer, for I think the research made by people on the english page are quite serious and I agree on them. But these french editors points out that some controversial are still existing on the english page, I don't really see what they are talk about. These are the same editors that spread rumours coming from the CCP, I don't know what to answer. They don't even talk about the content or try to reformulate, they are just kind of angry and always blame on cotroversial, or "unappropriate form to encyclopedia". As I'm almost blocked on wikipedia, I'd like to have the point of view of english writter on Falun Gong page, and about the controversial than existing on the english version. Do you know someone that can help me?

Thanks.

Davives

The content we have on the English side seems to be much richer than what's available in French, so you're probably making some good contributions if you can translate some material.

I haven't found the Falun Gong pages to be too controversial, actually. Most of the regulars on the pages are pretty cool, even if I don't always agree with them, and for the most part the Falun Gong articles are well written. It hasn't always been that way, and I think there used to be more of the problems you're describing, but this is just my experience.

If you find certain people are acting in a counterproductive or obstructionist way, or even if you're just having a hard time finding common ground with other well-meaning editors, try getting input from experienced editors to help sort it out. You could also initiate a dispute resolution resolution process to sort out the particulars of the content disagreements (here we have a dispute resolution noticeboard, as well as several more specific noticeboards like WP:POVN, WP:RSN, etc. Not sure what you have on French Wikipedia). In the mean time, keep a cool head, be patient, and read up on both the content and conduct rules, including WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:NPOV. TheBlueCanoe 05:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: hey I answer your question about Dominican Republic General Election of 2016 in the talk page. Att.: Israel Mencía

12 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your vigilance in maintaining wiki's veracity. How do you guys do it all? Is there a community of moderators? How do you correct mistakes so fast? (or was the correction of my experiment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war just by chance)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.138.163 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

107.3.138.163 (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Model Alliance 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:

• tw-share&_r=0/|newspaper= The New York Times |date= October 22, 2013|accessdate=October 23, 2013}}}</ref> In November 2013, the child model law was enacted and affords child models the same
• all|newspaper= The New York Times |date= December 23, 2014|accessdate=February 25, 2014}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Model Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Churn (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) 09:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a neutral tone, supported by the sources.
Thank you for quality articles such as Du Bin and Death of Shane Todd, for expanding Persecution of Falun Gong, for "We need a neutral tone, supported by the sources." and other clear edit summaries, on the background of a silent user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 923rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 923 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is funny. for the first time, i found a page on an obscure chinese communist ideological/political figure that is already made. i look through the contributions to see that you had made it. i have been on a somewhat haphazard wander through the haunts of CPC dudes and found that the 'pedia's offerings have been consistently thin gruel, so have been trying to help. i'll try to add some bricks to your jade Li Dongsheng piece. i have been editing by myself for a while so any notes on collaborative editing helpful.Happy monsoon day 03:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was my best work, but thanks. I just saw a red link on 610 Office and decided to make something of it. Glad to see someone else is trying to improve it. TheBlueCanoe 00:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Gutmann would meet wikis notability requirements?Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, probably. Check WP:BIO to be sure. Also, you would help your case by using more high quality citations to demonstrate notability, rather than just stuff from Gutmann's own page. Find book prominent reviews of his two books and biographies on independent websites. Seems like he also got called out by David Brooks as a Sidney Award recipient for long-form journalism.[1] TheBlueCanoe 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gutmann seems to meet notabilty criteria in 3 instances as per EG talk page.Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheBlueCanoe. You stated at WP:AE that three FG-related articles had been brought up to GA status. Can you let me know which ones? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong outside mainland China, 610 Office, Falun Gong, Kilgour-Matas report. Hope that helps. TheBlueCanoe 21:23, 19 April 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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your great work in protecting fine Wikipedia articles. Marvin 2009 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to stop your harassment and intimidation on my user page regarding Falun Gong articles. If you have any issues on the content just use the article's Talk page, you're not welcome to write on my user page. STSC (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to focus on content, rather than conduct, is not harassment. Neither is pointing out that you had engaged in a pattern of problematic editing across multiple pages, and giving you the opportunity to remedy it yourself. If the problem with your caption changes were confined to a single article, I would have brought it up on the corresponding talk page. Anyway, you've been reminded of the applicability of discretionary sanctions to these pages.TheBlueCanoe 01:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also remind you the discretionary sanction. I can see your real motive is to intimidate other editors who try to input more balanced content in Falun Gong related articles. You don't own the articles, you don't give me "opportunity to remedy", what a nonsense. STSC (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion about the NYT obituary as source for the claim that Yisrael Meir Kagan wanted to become a high priest? I ask because the discussion may have put the question in a somewhat new light. --Jonund (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. TheBlueCanoe 17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you strike this and explain why because STSC's edit is consistent with the cited sources.

• [2] – claiming that something attributed to a third party is actually just from “Falun Gong sources”

The cited sources.

• Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately.[3]
• Lawyers representing imprisoned Falun Gong members said...[4]

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should strike this and explain why because, again, STSC's edit is consistent with the cited source.

• [5] - Torture deaths as reported by the New York Times are merely “alleged”
• that human rights groups say has led to the imprisonment of tens of thousands of practitioners and claimed at least 2,000 lives [6]

What else did you get wrong? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinese human rights lawyers who have represented Falun Gong defendants are not "Falun Gong sources".
• Except in certain cases (e.g. when an individual is accused of a crime and a trial is pending, for instance), Wikipedia's manual of style recommends against using expressions of doubt such as "alleged", which is precisely what STSC has repeatedly done. (see WP:ALLEGED). TheBlueCanoe 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide weak evidence in an AE report, any experienced editor/admin can rip it to bits and you can end up looking like the POV pusher. STSC changed the statement to exactly match the State Dept report cited. If you don't acknowledge that and someone points it out, what does that say about you and the quality of your evidence? Maybe lawyers representing Falun Gong defendants are not "Falun Gong sources" but they are not independent third party sources and pretending they are will not look good. And WP:ALLEGED obviously doesn't mean it's okay to remove the attribution that was in the New York Times (that the 'alleged' represents) and turn the statement into an undisputed, unattributed statement of fact in the neutral narrative voice of one of the top sites on the internet with a mandatory WP:NPOV policy, in the lead no less. This isn't an effective way of dealing with biased editors in my opinion. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider the options available to counter evidence presented about the image caption changes. The Amnesty source cited (in German) does not say Gao Rongrong was tortured to death, it says they died in custody. So the caption was apparently inconsistent with the source cited. And while a German speaker might pick 'was reported' or 'reportedly' I guess, perhaps a non-German speaker might rely on google translate which uses 'allegedly', the word STSC used. So there is a non-English source ambiguity defense against the evidence. And again, the evidence can be used to make you look like the non-neutral editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts. Interestingly, when pressed on his claim that the number came from "Falun Gong sources," STSC didn't point to the state department report, but rather to the Telegraph article. Either way it's clear that the estimate is supported by more than just Falun Gong sources (though personally I think the number seems too high). On the NYTimes question, the ideal scenario might be to have the article read "As of 2009, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 have died..." That is the more neutral way to attribute the claim. But simply stating that something is "alleged" is not particularly helpful, and here the intended effect is to express doubt about the credibility of the claims. On Gao Rongrong, the sources I find do use "reportedly" (e.g. "Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck"), but they clearly state that she died in custody—so why would STSC remove this? And why use misleading edit summaries? And if, indeed, the editor is simply trying to maintain a NPOV, why is there no evidence of this level of prudence and attention to detail being exercised in the opposite direction?

Anyway, you may be right—maybe I could have found better diffs to illustrate the case, but we'll see what happens.TheBlueCanoe 19:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is just an informative page of the community - BolBihari which is created to up bring the people of Bihar, India. This page is very important for the community as this will help to support the community. So, I request you not to delete this page as this is very important for the cause of up bringing the community Prafullsranjan (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)PraFULLSRANAJN[reply]

I wish you the best of luck in raising up the people of Bihar, but Wikipedia is not the venue to do this. You may wish to read the article on what Wikipedia is not. TheBlueCanoe 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I still did not find any hard evidence about the statement about Falun Gong.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheBlueCanoe. 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, TheBlueCanoe. 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]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Leugen9001 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.TheBlueCanoe 18:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stop editing my work out.

When I wrote why should "mere mentions of Li 1999 times interview" be omitted from Wikipedia.

I was being specific. By editing it out and changing it, people would think I'm talking about something different.

Can you at least tell me why among other eduts, you removed it?

I did not take this to the dispute department yet only because I feel it would be better if you and I were to discuss the reasons why. If we can't then I'll take it to official disputes.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I already added another "dedicated" thread to about how poor the current Wikipedia's reasoning for the banning of falun gong. I stated my facts and pointed out the flaws. But it's been wholly removed. If you have an issue with it, you could have at least made a reply on why the thread is bad instead of removing.

If you disagreed with what I said. You should add a reply and I'm not the most unreasonable guy. If I feel there's a proper understandable reason, I would respect it. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any threads, so not sure what you're referring to (diffs please?). Li's Time interview is on his biography page and on the teachings page. There's no conspiracy to omit it. TheBlueCanoe 15:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheBlueCanoe. 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) 00:15, 19 November 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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a reminder that there's similar measures in place for articles relating to Falun Gong. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2020 (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 Falun Gong. 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.

Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know that placing frivolous warnings on user pages is also considered a form of harassment, right? That you don't like an edit does not make it disruptive. TheBlueCanoe 22:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That you keep "accidentally" removing info that FLG doesn't like is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you implying? I suggest you spell it out. Do you have more than a single data point to establish this pattern? TheBlueCanoe 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason editors keep referring to edits like this and this with terms like "scrubbing" and "censorship."

If they are good-faith mistakes and not attempts to go against sources and consensus, then slow down and start making smaller edits so you don't keep "accidentally" removing information that FLG doesn't like. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment that the above diffs defied consensus or were otherwise unjustified. As to whether Falun Gong "likes" or "doesn't like" something, I am agnostic. I care that Wikipedia articles need to follow content policies like WP:NPOV.TheBlueCanoe 12:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you may be reported for userspace harassment.TheBlueCanoe 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disruption the goddamn FG space and you won’t get templates on your talk, you seem not to be able to take a hint even when an admin explains exactly what about your edits are disruptive as above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page so that its content conforms to content policies, and providing detailed explanations of those edits on the corresponding talk page, is not disruptive.

But following editors around the encyclopedia to disrupt their work, engaging in userspace harassment, and edit warring while refusing to engage in talk page discussions, are all examples of disruptive conduct.TheBlueCanoe 16:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson has already explained to you why your edits are seen as disruptive and advised you to change up your editing style, you did not. Per WP:ASPERSIONS lets see diffs for each of the aspersions you just cast, some of those are serious accusations of misconduct. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are serious accusations. I agree. The kind of offences that should get an editor topic-banned. TheBlueCanoe 17:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you’ve doubled down would you mind providing diffs or retracting the aspersions? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will absolutely compile diffs. It's a pretty long list. TheBlueCanoe 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be, you made a lot of accusations. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't intent to support your accusations after they’ve been questioned you need to retract them, now. I’ve given you more than enough time. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm compiling diffs, and you'll have an opportunity to answer for them. But this isn't complicated. Your last revert on Falun Gong was an instance of edit warring, wherein you did not discuss the merits of the changes. Nearly all your reverts on that page fit the same pattern. Your actions on this page is an example of userspace harassment. Following me to Why Liberalism Failed and The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties is an example of hounding.TheBlueCanoe 22:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of justifying/supporting your previous allegations you’re going to make more? Seriously? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo TheBlueCanoe, you still need to provide diffs. It will be ten days tomorrow. Failure to satisfy WP:ASPERSIONS will lead me to escalate this to a noticeboard. By the way when WP:ASPERSIONS is invoked compiling those diffs needs to be your first priority, you seem to have engaged in multiple edits since so I would like to know your excuse for the delay. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

you may not make any reverts, subject to the usual exceptions, on Falun Gong

You have been sanctioned for edit warring on Falun Gong.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have come to a time and place where the truth has become more costly than ever.

I have paid careful attention to your contributions for some time. No one dares to say it but I will. You have done amazing work and I respect you for your perseverance. I don't know who you are, what you do or what it is that drives you to do what you are doing. But keep it up. There are people who are watching. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of you. I'm on vacation for a couple more days, but when reunited with books and stable wifi I may start bringing forward some more editing proposals.TheBlueCanoe 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheBlueCanoe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Homunculus.
Message added 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 07:57, 5 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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The SecDev Group 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/The SecDev Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Devokewater ^(talk) 15:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]