Your recent editing history at Zeitgeist: The Movie shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the other user not receive a warning? Does it have something to do with him supporting your POV? Xabian40409 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has something to do with the fact he is an experienced user, and likely has been warned or has warned others about 3RR, and the fact he only has 2 reverts, while you have 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing admin powers to attack an editor that doesn't disagree with you. Nice, Arthur 207.172.121.146 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had two apiece. The first one doesn't count, as I was making a modification, not reverting. Also, I have been an editor (sure, on and off, I don't spend my life here) since 2005, so I am no new kid on the block. Xabian40409 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had four edits, all removing "conspiracy" from the lead. The first was a "modification", although some might call it a revert. The latter three, although not all pure reverts, removed "conspiracy" from the lead, so were reverts "in part". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the POV flag and started a discussion on the talk page that can be found here. Xabian40409 (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xabian, I have removed the term vandalism on the talk page. Your edits were inappropriate but do not, in the opinion of editors I respect, rise to the level of vandalism. I apologize to you for using that term. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Xabian40409 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

xabian 21:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a serious suggestion. The birds project is scientific, and to my mind should follow scientific (metric) measurement. Projects can get exceptions from overall policy within their own areas (eg Physicists—metric only, Birds—capitalisation of species and Plants—binomial instead of common names). Having said that, I don't think we would get consensus within the project, the Americans will probably object. Might be worth a try again, though.

You are right that many measurements are given in mm. Even at FA, myself and other biological contributors often give small measurements only in mm, and it's never challenged. I assume that this is because 0.078 in is a meaningless to an American as 2 mm.

I still find it difficult to see why we need some of the measurements you include. I wouldn't object to a template, I'm just concerned that it's addressing an avoidable problems. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There. I've been away for the past week, and at this moment I am not home. I will gladly weigh in; I did briefly scan the arguments and from what I can see it's nothing new from the usual suspects. The page appears heavily guarded by an unfortunate few who consider themselves guardians of the page. Mostly, they prefer if you accuse Zeitgeist of being Anti-Semitic. Try making that your opening foray and you can easily befriend them. If you take umbrage for moral reasons and would rather do battle, I utterly understand. Anyway, I will post to the discussion within the next 48-72hr. Cheers. sabine antelope 00:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In addition to the discussion on the Zeitgeist article talk page, a discussion has also been started at the BLP noticeboard appears to be offering their own "vote" in summarized, capsulized form. Someone mentioned that that was only for those not already involved in the discussion on the article talk page, but I don't know what the reason for that was, and it seems that that intent has not been adhered to, since editors from the article tp discussion have weighed in on the BLP talk page. Nightscream (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great contributions to the discussion Dustin184 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first one ^_^

You need to stop the personal attacks and strike-through or remove the ones you've made today. I can understand not liking another editors views, but the crap you've posted today is not acceptable. Insulting one editor's intelligence "...count past ten..." is bad enough but that last section is a damn good way to get blocked. Stop with the attacks. Strike-through or remove the ones you've already made. Ravensfire (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Ravensfire (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. sabine antelope 05:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are key. We very much prefer secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Thanks and welcome again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't see your name in the list of email addresses submitted. If you still want an account, please use the form above. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited African Scops Owl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Okavango (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) 12:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Death of Jill Meagher. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Derryn Hinch IS in prison for the reasons explained in my edit. Most of this information comes from TV and popular Newspapers; I can hardly find you a peer reviewed journal article on the matter. Perhaps I will reference his blog; or is that also a contravention of policy? What is it you want from me: good sources (there are none ), or any sources? sabine antelope 02:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Ita (2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Landfall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't realize, the statement in question isn't my personal "claim". It's a quotation directly from Template:Current disaster's documentation.
You've misunderstood these templates' intended purpose, which is to warn users that rapid changes to the article by a large number of editors is currently ongoing, making the article difficult to work on without encountering edit conflicts that impede their ability to keep it updated properly.
Every Wikipedia article links to Wikipedia:General disclaimer, explaining that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here". As explained in the parent template's documentation, these tags are "not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic", which would lead to their inclusion in "hundreds of thousands of articles", "with no informational consequence." In other words, if we were to insert these tags in every article documenting "a rapidly changing situation", they would be so widely used that they'd cease to communicate any information of value. Please help us to save them for when they're actually needed. Thank you. —David Levy 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted; thanks for that. I consider your claim there are thousands of current natural disasters rather spurious, but I digress. Whatever makes you sleep at night. sabine antelope 15:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't "my claim" either. As stated above, I quoted the documentation of Template:Current (the parent template in the series). This refers to articles subject to change due to ongoing occurrences of any kind (not natural disasters in particular). —David Levy 18:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I don't quite understand the current nature of the disagreement (which I previously believed had been resolved).

You thanked me for explaining the template's purpose. There was some additional confusion regarding the provenance/meaning of the "hundreds of thousands of articles" statement, so I clarified that it's from the parent template's documentation and doesn't pertain specifically to articles about natural disasters. Then I waited until you'd resumed editing (to ensure that there were no other points that you wanted addressed here) before removing the template.

Now you've reinserted it again, with the edit summary "No valid basis for removing the template". Can you please elaborate? Thank you. —David Levy 05:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RedStrangersCover2006.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Marcia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mackay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. Actually I saw the link, Marcia formed as a "tropical low on the 16th, which is the formation date of the TC. The low intensified into a tropical cyclone and was named Marcia on the 18th. This is why I follow the BoM link as well to keep in track of these storms. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just in case you want a source, here it is: http://www.webcitation.org/6WP93DSNv . The low started is Marcia, not Lam. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an outlook and it clearly states "A tropical low is located in the Coral Sea along the monsoon trough and well off the Queensland east coast. This low may develop in strength over the coming days while initially moving further east, before taking on a more southerly track from Wednesday." That's the tropical low from which Marcia subsequently formed. The "date formed" is not the date the low formed, it's the date the cyclone formed. Besides which, you would still be mistaken, because according to this link again, that low pressure system had been extant since 0:00 UTC on 14 February. It's time you drop it. sabine antelope 06:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If i may jump in here as one of the users who Typhoon2013 thinks of as an Administrator, but am not and just have an interest in tropical weather and have been here improving the pages in the region for a while. Marcia's naming and upgrade to a tropical cyclone (tropical storm) and Tropical cyclogenesis (formation) are two different events, it appears from the surface maps that are linked above that the formation took place on the Feb 15, however, for the time being I feel it is best to keep it to Feb 16 since we do not have proof that it was a tropical low on the 15th. It is also worth noting at this junction that a tropical low is Australia's term for a tropical depression (Pg 11) and are thus tropical cyclones in the global sense of the term. I wish to end by saying how much i appreciate you trying to exapnd the article and keep the facts correct - its great too see and if you have any questions just let me know on my talkpage :) Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added dates for the highest and lowest temperatures at Queenstown, New Zealand, but the existing source does not give dates. Please add the source for this information, or it will have to be removed.-gadfium 21:30, 13 March 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) 13:06, 23 November 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liawenee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Wellington. 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) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xabian40409. 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]

A tag has been placed on Heat Stroke requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xabian40409. 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]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Galah, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. This really shouldn't need 23 edits. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Galah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 18 July 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jannik Sinner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jannik Sinner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]