User talk:Obscurasky

Citation overkill
About this: This only repeats what is presented lower in the article, and supported by sources already named in the article. It's common to have the fewest number of citations in the introduction (see WP:LEADCITE). If you agree that the sources named in the article (e.g., for the first sentence) sufficiently cover these points, then perhaps you'll choose to remove the citation-needed tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. The first request was because the statement 'the terms used to describe this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill' seems very much POV, and the second was because I'd like to see some kind of reference to support the claim that the terms were 'invented in the middle of the 20th century'. If this claim is referenced later on in the article I haven’t spotted it. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort!
You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself.  For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually.  Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfilled reference!
Hi there, I've just come across your article Religious beliefs of The Beatles while doing new page patrol; your reference
 * [13]

doesn't actually have a link to the Partridge book anywhere (and as far as I can see, it didn't have it in the first revision). Could you go back and see where you found it, and fill the citation in there? It's the only time that named ref, or any Harvard ref, is used, so filling straight in between the tags will work fine. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UKIPlogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:UKIPlogo.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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tylorstown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky TV (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) 11:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Concern
There is discussion at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard which you might like to participate in. Please use the article talk page to discuss the content, not contributors, as you did here. If you have concerns about my motives you may raise them on my talk page in the usual way. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote 'Removing material on the basis that it appears to paint an organisation in a bad light should not be a motivation for edits' in a context that implied that I was doing that. If you think so, then have the courage to say so outright, and if you are not willing to say so outright, don't mention my motives at all.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * People who make edits with personal agendas undermine the whole basis of Wikipedia. The above is just a statement of fact........something I'd like to think you agree with it. Obscurasky (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult my intelligence with that tired old "just a statement of fact" stuff. You made that particular statement, more than once, and after I had asked you not to be personal, in order to undermine my argument by implying that I might have a personal agenda, and you know it, and I know it.  Just cut it out.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're very rude.....someting else which has no place on Wikipedia.Obscurasky (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Anglican Mainstream (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Christian conservatism


 * Core Issues Trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Advertising Standards Authority

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation
FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have a strong opinion on this issue. On balance I'd favour the lower case option, mid-sentence, but the most important thing for me is that there is concensus one way or another. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
Hello Obscurasky; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band " THE BEATLES " mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD vsWP:AFD
Anyone but the originator of the article may remove a speedy tag, as I did at Cross necklace, when reviewing the article as an administrator to see if it should be deleted a I removed the tag because speedy deletion is strictly and narrowly limited to those instances enumerated at WP:CSD, and whether an article might not be on a recognized term is not among them. The only possibly relevant tags would be no show of importance, which only applies to apply to articles about people, organizations, individual animals,and planned events-- this article is not in any of these classes. The other would be G11 promotionalism, and that does not seem to apply either, as no specific thing or company is being promoted. If you still want the article deleted, you should use either WP:PROD or WP:AFD-- WP:PROD is only useful if you think there will be no objections to the removal ,because anyone, even the creator, can remove a prod tag, so I think that leaves AfD. I cannot judge whether or not the community will decide the article should be deleted, and it is not up to me.
 * I see you replaced the tag I removed, and this is not permitted. See WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. I do not think any administrator would delete the article on the basis of the criterion you used.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please move this discussion to the talk page of the Cross necklace page.
 * Please demonstrate that Cross necklace is a legitimate term and then remove the tag. Obscurasky (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did indeed put this on that page also.There is no need to add a reference to remove a speedy tag. I do not know where you found that imaginary rule. Please read the policy pages I linked to. If you re-add the tag, it will likely to be considered disruptive, and I shall ask some other administrator to tell you so. Had I left the tag on ,or deleted the article, that's when someone could have validly complained about me.  DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Christian sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Christian (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) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war notice
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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.

Note that "he's a celebrity!!!1!1!!" is not one of the exceptions-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

White Album move request
I addressed your concerns at Talk:The Beatles (album). I would appreciate your feedback. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In particular: May I point out that saying that the official name takes precedence over colloquial names is contrary to our own article titling guidelines, WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL? Our own title guidelines say to use a common name over the official name. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 13:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Very interesting indeed, and certainly trumps my argument, although I'm still not convinced that changing The Beatles (album) name is actually covered by the rationale shown in WP:OFFICIAL. Thoughts? Obscurasky (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFICIAL alone is not quite strong enough for my liking, with the closest match for the album being that The White Album has become a de facto formal reference to the album when the official name could cause confusion, such as for someone searching for the album's article. Although as a counterexample I would argue that China over People's Republic of China would be an example of us bypassing a well known official name in favor of a more concise informal name, so there is precedent in using a fourth criterion, when a colloquial reference is as or more recognizable than an already well known formal name. I realize OFFICIAL alone would be weak, so I am advocating that it is the combination of that showing our lack of binding to official names, WP:Commonname with the ubiquity of The White Album nickname, the redirect from TWA pointing straight to that page implying no ambiguity concerns over using The White Album, and WP:NCDAB's discomfort with the parenthetical construct that forms my argument. I'm using that combination of policies to augment each other into what I hope is a persuasive combination. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what do you think? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 16:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded under my original comment on the page. Cheers, Obscurasky (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for your patience. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Trail
Many thanks for the encouraging comments. I never intended to do so much, and was in fact planning to take a break from Wikipedia! i regret that neither of the suggestions is of real interest, as I'm a walker rather than cyclist, but if I have a moment I might try and do something.Rwood128 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

AntiChristian sentiment
Just Vandalism explains everything? You may have got a better idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've written something on the talk page, it would be great if you could add something there. Obscurasky (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Trail riding
Thanks. It is most helpful to have another pair of eyes, especially as an over-the-hill hiker I felt a little out of my depth, especially re usage. Rwood128 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RM notice
You may be interested in Talk:Razorback, as you participated in previous related discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warren James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coleford. 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, 25 December 2014 (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) 14:04, 24 November 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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Core Issues Trust logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Core Issues Trust logo.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ComtelLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ComtelLogo.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Sundayclose (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Sundayclose (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Sundayclose (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Memorial hall
Hello, Obscurasky. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Memorial hall, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

John from Idegon (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to give me a chance to edit this page first John, I only moved it 5 minutes ago!Obscurasky (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead of reverting significant edits over a dispute about part of the edit, could you maybe just fix the specific thing you are talking about? Or leave a note on talk and I can do it. Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

TripAdvisor
Hello Obscurasky, TripAdvisor is a company and its business model is based on its web activities. You should go on their website and check the evolution I was reporting is not just a "revamp", it evolved from a website to a social network. Maybe the tone was not the good one, but I tried to make it as short as possible and comprehensible. Could you reconsider your revertion? Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You could maybe just fix the tone? (The information was significant enough to Forbes and The Huffington Post)--Philippe49730 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just spent some time reading through their website and, honestly, I do not believe the changes you've written about warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If you feel strongly enough about it you're perfectly entitled to reinsert the information, but you should write encyclopaedically and stick to the facts; not the spin that Stephen Kaufer has published about the changes. Obscurasky (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geraint Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Geraint_Thomas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Geraint_Thomas?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) 07:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Insect hotel
Hello, You reverted my addition to Insect hotel. Did you read the reference provided (which you didn’t remove) before doing that? The reference supports what I added; actually, the author wrote it in order to explain that butterfly hotels are not used by butterflies. Without my addition, the article is misleading. palpalpalpal (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, no I didn't see a reference. If the claim is supported it is certainly worthy of inclusion. Obscurasky (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just read the reference article, but I notice that many other articles support the claim that specifically designed insect hotels (or special areas incorporated within insect hotels) are beneficial to butterflies. I would suggest the wording you add should read something along the lines of 'their suitability for butterflies is disputed'. Obscurasky (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you then please add those other articles as references, so that the wording your recommend is supported? palpalpalpal (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ok done. Feel free to edit if you're not happy. Obscurasky (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A blog that defines itself as “an ‘influencer’ within the home and garden sector”, written by a “creative director and art director”, with numerous links to commercial insect hotels on Amazon, which shows no research and doesn’t even actually state that these hotels are beneficial to butterflies, isn’t relevant to Wikipedia. palpalpalpal (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The citation is not intended to demonstrate that butterfly areas are effective; it is there to demonstrate that some people believe they are - and therefor that disagreement on their effectiveness exists. I don't know of any scientific study to support either side of the argument, but clearly some people don't believe they work and some people do (or they wouldn't exist). This is your edit; if you're not happy with the citation I inserted, please find a better one. Obscurasky (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)}
 * Reporting every layman’s opinion is not the purpose of Wikipedia. People who did investigate the matter found that hotel insects don’t work – no published scholarly articles, but still reports of investigations by competent people. People who report no investigation (and, in this case, make a profit from selling the thing) claim they do. Those claims, not having equal grounds, are definitely not of equal importance with respect to Wikipedia’s purpose, which is knowledge, not beliefs. The article about Earth doesn’t say that there is disagreement about whether it is round or flat. palpalpalpal (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ....the reason being that sufficient scholarly material exists to demonstrate, to an acceptable degree, that the world is indeed round - however, he same is not true in this regard. I have changed the citation in the article to a more reliable source, and I believe its inclusion sufficiently demonstrates that disagreement on the effectiveness of butterfly enclosures does exist. If you're still not happy please take this discussion to the talk page of that article. Obscurasky (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The new source doesn’t report any investigations; it’s irrelevant. palpalpalpal (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not believe sufficient scholarly study exists to be able to a conclusively state that butterfly houses are useless. When a dispute like this arises the correct procedure is to is take it to the Talk page. Obscurasky (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pub check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pub?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Stoughton ref on Darkhill Ironworks
Hi, Ages ago (9 years) you added a reference (Stoughton 1908, pp. 408–409) to the article Darkhill Ironworks but unfortunately didn't add any further details of the source - do you still have it so we can add the details?&mdash; Rod talk 18:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly I don't, but there is something here; West Yorkshire Steel and here www.britannica.co. Interestingly, the latter says it was also 'the first commercial steel alloy'. Obscurasky (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mountain biking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate lead
I think the article’s probably grown since the lead was written, and the introduction could benefit from a rewrite. It states Dad’s Army is a BBC sitcom, but the article covers all its incarnations; the stage play, the films, radio show, and the ‘lost episodes’ - produced by UKTV. Obscurasky (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

British Hound Sports Association moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, British Hound Sports Association, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For goodness sake, it's only a few hours old, go away. Obscurasky (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete the welcome message at a new editor’s talk page?
here. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would really like an answer! Doug Weller  talk 17:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

JW are a branch of Protestantism
The edit in question has a citation. . It is obvious that it is a contentious topic, but the denomination is indeed a branch from Protestantism.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please take this ti the talk page = I'll respond there. Obscurasky (talk) 11:42, 29 July 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
You must supply a reliable source when you add information to an article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to supply it.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cinderford, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"; from WP:BURDEN. Obscurasky (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

'Vandalism'
I am surprised, to say the least, that someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2009 should be as utterly unaware of Wikipedia policy as you appear to be, in your recent edit summaries concerning the Islamophobia article. I would strongly advise you to take note of what WP:Vandal actually says, and then discuss the disputed content on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's neither untrue, nor controversial, to state that the "The scope and precise definition of the term Islamophobia is the subject of debate.......", in fact that statement has been in the article for seven or eight years. Yet you think it's ok to remove this established and long-agreed section without consultation, and you still claim that's not an act of vandalism?    Obscurasky (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not going to debate with you here. If I see any further attempts to force through your preferred version of an article through by the gross misuse of the term 'vandalism', which absolutely DOES NOT apply in the circumstances, I will report the matter. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please report this matter.
 * I'm not forcing through my prefered version, I've been reinstating the long-agreed version that has existed on that page for many years. The fact that you're trying to twist these clear facts says everything there is to know about your motivation. Obscurasky (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

my opinion
@Obscurasky You seem to be much older than me on Wikipedia, I respect your experience, also request and suggest calming down. The article, may be I have not edited much, is in my watch least. Many times I take initiative to facilitate discussion, my effort is to reduce misunderstanding. Some times sharing a word helps.

Those users seem to have already started some discussion at the talk page -means some level of consultation- and there after deleted some content. If there is any previous consultation you can all the way point out at the ongoing talk page discussion there and that may help reduce misunderstanding.

You are much more experienced than me so you are likely to know policies better than me but still up to my present understanding other than RfC proved consensus rest is much fragile and usually onus rests on who wish to retain or add content, not otherwise. So it's always better to look for strong academic RS as much as available and RfC consensus will be less fragile in long term. Wish you happy editing.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)