User talk:Montalban

Talkback
 Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nymf hideliho! 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help.

Montalban (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 

Gen. George Thomas
I re-edited the article to put back in
 * In 1831 Thomas and his family were nearly caught up in the slave revolt of Nat Turner. Whilst some repressive acts were enforced following the crushing of the revolt, Thomas took the lesson another way, seeing that slavery was so vile an institution that it had forced the slaves to act in violence.

Yes, Turner was mentioned in the previous article, but nothing about Thomas' life-changing reaction to slavery following the revolt

Montalban (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you at least for putting the information in the correct location. Please provide a page number citation or remove it. It is unfortunate that Bobrick is now introduced as a reference to the article because his book is really a substandard biography and I have avoided citing him up until now. I have balanced his opinion with that of a more reliable biographer, IMHO. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a number of references given on the General G. Thomas entry that only have an author, such as "Einolf". I think these need to be proper (more academic) references, with book title and publisher details.


 * Thanks for the page number. These are abbreviated cites that are read in conjunction with the full publication details in the References section, as we do in hundreds of ACW articles. See User:Hlj/CWediting. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, just so you know, on en.wikipedia, User:Hlj literally wrote the manual of style for military biography. So if Hal makes a suggestion as it regards style, he knows what we've been doing better than anyone. Doesn't necessarily mean he's correct in every circumstance, but he's an extremely respected editor in this interest area. Just FYI. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to discuss issues in talkspace as opposed to via personal message. No offense intended. I agree Cimprich was a disappointing read. I was hoping for more than a half page devoted to his upbringing. Sorry I couldn't provide more or better help. BusterD public (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your PM about Lee
Blame this fellow. He started the hero worship. The Lost Causers developed this entire mythology about Lee. Lee was a special soldier and demonstrated his enormous resourcefulness and value as early as 1847. His successful ACW campaigns gave him a legendary status. But if Lee had been born at Arlington instead of Stratford, he might have stayed in the Union Army and the war would have likely lasted a much shorter time. And but for a horseshoe nail (so to speak), it might have been W.W. Loring, not Jackson, who became Stonewall. But as my late father used to say, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bust his ass a'hoppin'. BusterD (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm living the adage of 'learning a new thing every day'. Montalban (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's my whole life, brother. Thanks for the morsel. BusterD (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

??
Would you like some help? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Co-Redemptrix as Church doctrine?
Your comparison of the papal infallibility theory before 1870 with the "co-redemptrix" title of the Mother of God today is a good one. The co-redemptrix theory is not yet (if it ever will be) a Church doctrine now, but only a theory that (some) Catholic theologians hold and that they explain in different ways, and that other Catholic theologians deny on different grounds. If it is ever raised to the status of Church doctrine, the definition of the doctrine will clarify in what sense the Theotokos can be called co-redemptrix, as happened in 1870 when the theory that (some) theologians had been maintaining was clarified, so that the Church doctrine excludes the idea that every doctrinal statement by a pope is infallible.

Would you please explain what is "the English remonstrance to Parliament" that you write about? What were the English remonstrating about? Was it during Pitt's first or his second period as Prime Minister? Since you say Pitt was making suggestions to the remonstrators with a view to granting Catholic emancipation, they surely weren't remonstrating against the Act of Union with Ireland, passed during Pitt's first period as Prime Minister, or were they? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what they're writing about - you even changed the article (improving it) by adding in that it was about Catholic Emancipation. Montalban (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just don't know what the English (which English?) were remonstrating about. Please let me know.  Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha!

Montalban (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Please see Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge papal heresy?
Hey again if you haven't read him already you should read Ross' stuff on the papacy. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heres another article or two that could us some touching up..Latin Empire and Massacre of the Latins.

Thanx again LoveMonkey (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Australia (D84)
-- saberwyn 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about User:Esoglou at ANI
Hello Montalban. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you have an opinion on lifting Esoglou's editing restriction from Orthodox articles you can join the discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

East West Schism
Please come to the East West schism article Monti. To reflect some more upon the edit warring of the Esoglou, Richard tag team edit warriors of the Roman Catholic church! LoveMonkey (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are those papists causing trouble again? ;-)  – Lionel (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

....What is being said and also ignored by senior people at Wikipedia. People post concerns and those concerns get brushed away out of hand, ignored or punished. Please read the article Monti. You know its true and the comments from Ed today validate what the ZDNet article says. Your wasting your personal time and your energy and anyone can go to my talkpage and see the times you have posted your frustration at the double standard and how Esoglou and Pseudo Richard can pick apart (with absolute immunity) what your trying to contribute.. It is clear that Wikipedia will not confront others editors and they instead will put their heads in the sand and ignore that they are either directly abusing people or enabling other editors they will not confront to abuse people. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Any friend of LoveMonkey is a friend of mine

– Lionel (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 

July 2012
Your recent editing history at Saints Sergius and Bacchus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. --Cúchullain t/ c 12:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Live at the Wireless, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The East West schism and filioque articles
Yep Esoglou just can't leave Eastern Orthodox subjects and people alone. Please read the mentioned article talkpages. And God Bless LoveMonkey (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Some help on this one
Hello I was hoping for some help on the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople article. All kinds of Pro Roman Catholic things that are historically inaccurate and basically just propaganda are in the article it almost makes no mention of the way the office was created nor what it's purpose was. It also does not cover aggressions committed against the Orthodox by way of this type of power being created (for example the things done to the Orthodox when the Crusaders took the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A most important understanding
I would like to create an article on the subject of Romiosini. However I don't really have the time. I think it will do much to give people an understanding of the ethnic identity of the Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Mediterranean in the post Roman Empire. Here is a good article about the subject of this ethnic identity as Romiosini and or Political Hesychasm by Daniel Paul Payne. Allot of Eastern Orthodox apology against Western Christianity, is encapsulated in this "movement". Of course if people don't know anything about the EO then they will know even less about it's history including things like who Philotheos Bryennios is or The Patmias Ecclesiastical School Island of Revelations theological school. I would like to create an article on the Patmos school as well, since it was founded in 1733. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Some history
Here is a tiny snapshot of a book the book is this one. This position is one that has had a very clear influence on Romanides. This passage covers the overview of the Normans as the allies of the Italians whom warred against the East Roman Empire. Note that this war (around the time of the schism) has a long history before the schism. Also it has consequences to it that Europe will not able to accept. Note this passage.


 * "The Norman attack on the Byzantine empire had no little influence on the situation in the east. For one thing, it strengthened Saladin's position on the eve of his conquest of Jerusalem. Up to this moment the alliance between the Latins of Jerusalem and the Byzantines had proved one of the bulwarks of the Christian position in the east, withstanding even the test of the common defeat at Damietta in 1169. But, in fear of a Sicilian (or even a combined German-Sicilian) attack, Andronicus had accepted Saladin's overtures and concluded a treaty which was later confirmed by Isaac II Angelus. The Kurdish leader maintained good relations with both Isaac Angelus in Constantinople and Isaac Comnenus in Cyprus. On the other hand, while the attack on the Greek empire had brought the Sicilian king no gain, and probably a serious loss of prestige, it considerably weakened the empire on the Bosporus and showed the way to the conquest of 1203-1204."

It is a component to the East West schism that the attacking of the Eastern Christian communities by the Roman Catholic raiders precipitated the fall of the Eastern Empire to the Muslims. This is something that is not a very popular reality for the Western Christians to accept. That their forefathers attacked and weakened Eastern Christians so much so that an alliance with the Muslims (to protect the East Empire from the Normans, Italians) was actually pursued. It goes from there that the Egyptians had actually done this first. This entire aspect is missing from the Western depiction of the subject. This is critical to understand that actual history of Greece during this time, a history that is not covered nor even acknowledged in the West. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Muckaty station
Thanks for your edit here, but the link you provided as a source doesn't work. I'm removing the para for the moment unless you can provide a page number reference from hiddins. If you can, though, that'd be great. hamiltonstone (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Steam Power - **Revolution Plot Spoilers Ahead**
I did warn you.

Basically a revamped Steam Train appears and it is explained that the civil unrest and militia wars following the blackout destroyed boats and steam trains as no one had the man power to get them up to scratch and maintain them. Following all that no one really had the expertise and skills to get them working again and the only ones left were in museums etc.

Hope that answers your question. MisterShiney  ✉    21:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
MisterShiney  ✉    21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joint Strike Fighter program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Liliana Gasinskaya, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! j⚛e deckertalk 16:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

May 2013
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Culture of Australia. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing for me not to reference and another to assume that it's novel synthesis. How about asking for a reliable source, rather than accusing someone of doing something wrong?

Montalban (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff St John
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff St John, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.milesago.com/Artists/jeffstjohn.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Jeff St John, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! j⚛e deckertalk 01:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glenn Lazarus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wayne Bennett (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) 12:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sergius and Bacchus, Saint Sarkis the Warrior
Hello, I have just noticed that someone has created a separate article about "Saint Sarkis the Warrior". Actually, Saint Sarkis the Warrior represents the same personality of Saint Sergius. The article of Saint Sarkis the Warrior is completely fraud. Thus, I suggest to delete the article or merge it with the article of Sergius and Bachus, as it is nonsense to keep 2 separate articles for a single saint. Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2017
Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of English words of Scottish Gaelic origin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

KIA Symbol
The FARC KIA symbol you were confused about means death by natural causes Ranger Aragorn B) (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Don't Dream It's Over, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australasian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Don%27t_Dream_It%27s_Over check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Don%27t_Dream_It%27s_Over?client=notify 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) 09:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Atlantis
You may want to participate at the existing talk page discussions at Talk:Richat_Structure and Talk:Atlantis (there appears to be no consensus to include it at this time). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Also you are now at 3rr, and maybe edit warring. Please stop adding this and engage in the existing threads about this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven I do not know what 3rr means. I have set out in the talk section of the Atlantis article the reasons why I have put my information back. I had not seen any reasons for why my section was twice removed. I would like to think you wrote to that person and suggested that they are edit warring also.

Montalban (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that like me he is an Administrator and thus extremely familiar with what edit warring means, he only reverted you once, thus not edit warring. Doug Weller  talk 09:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, trivial mentions of possible locations don't belong in the main article but at Location hypotheses of Atlantis. But you would still need consensus to add it there. Doug Weller  talk 09:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying what 3RR means
Your recent editing history at Atlantis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller
 * Interesting that if two people are adding/reverting material only one is in an 'edit war'.

And hey, if you feel that this sort of material is not serious but belongs on a totally different page - even though the main page has speculative other locations, then you obviously see a significance there too, that I do not see.

Thank you for cut n' pasting what 3rr means. I am not a full-time writer here so am not aware of this.

Montalban (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are 4 people involved. 3 are reverting you. That almost always means you need to stop and get agreement. I suspect that there are some mentions in the main Atlantis article that also don't belong. Note that the discussion about the Richat structure started before you added it, you are not being singled out and you're not the first one to be reverted for trying to link the two. You'd know that if you'd read the other discussions. We may end up with a mention in the appropriate place, but the sources need to meet our policies and guidelines as does the wording. Doug Weller  talk 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How come there's more people adding in stuff that Richat Structure is Atlantis than reverting it, yet the people reverting it all claim that it is all one person? It seems inherently dishonest, to me. A compromise surely is to recognise that this is what most people consider to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So how many, 4 billion people believe it? In any case, we have guidelines and policies on this, and the Richat structure is mentioned in the article. The current problem is the attempt to publicise a conspiracy theorist. Doug Weller  talk 15:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems totally silly to have a section in the main article about other possible sites and then to have a totally separate article on other possible sites

Montalban (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: First Amendment Audits has been accepted
 First Amendment Audits, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=First_Amendment_Audits help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A page you started (First Amendment audits) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating First Amendment audits, Montalban!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for your new article on First Amendment audits. I strongly recommend expanding the article with more robust examples from the sources. Also note that the article is an 'orphan', meaning that no other Wikipedia articles link TO it. This makes the article hard to find for interested readers. See WP:DE-ORPHAN for pointers."

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sleep Walk
Please see WP:IPCV. In popular culture items must be accompanied by a ctation that establishes the significance of the reference, not merely that it occurred. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The significance is that the song is used in a film. This is rare. I cannot quantify rarity or significance... both are subjective

But the fact remains the song is used in a film of similar name. If you can point out a plethora of other movies that use this track then I would say its use in this film is NOT significant

Montalban (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now included the fact that the song inspired King to write the screenplay that the film of the same name... which it would not take much to conclude that is why they put the song of that name in a film of that name.

"Inspired by the Santo & Johnny song “Sleep Walk,” (the Sleepwalkers dance to a record of it in the movie), Stephen King’s Sleepwalkers is the first screenplay he wrote for the screen."

It seems to me rather silly to have to go to so much effort to prove the 'significance' of one song.

Montalban (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a proper source. Please note that IMDb generally should not be used in citations, per WP:RS/IMDb. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of First Amendment audits for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First Amendment audits 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 Articles for deletion/First Amendment audits 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 until the discussion has finished. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the notification, though it's probably something you have to do
 * The First Amendment Audits (1AA) are also simply called ‘Audits’ in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
 * This is a vibrant new phenomena challenging bad policing and bad public policy to uphold long held legal principles, such as free speech and freedom of assembly
 * I will not participate in the discussions. If people at wikipedia so hate freedoms then so be it.
 * I have noticed - and I do not know who is responsible for the linking but a number of times I view these 1AA YouTube videos there is a link below to Wiki’s article on sovereign citizens which itself is a slay attack on the 1AA community by associating one thing (about upholding the law) to those who don’t believe the laws apply to them at all.
 * Montalban (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eddie Hodges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Right Stuff. 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) 06:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)