This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Rævhuld! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).
Hi Rævhuld! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish English until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish English until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Requesting immediate archiving...
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hello, I'm Usernamekiran. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:John F. Kennedy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Even though after getting a notice previously regarding this issue. In the light of recent events, your edits appear to constitute vandalism. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hello, I'm Usernamekiran. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:John F. Kennedy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Even though after getting a notice previously regarding this issue. In the light of recent events, your edits appear to constitute vandalism. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for starting the conversation at Gay concentration camps in Chechnya. When someone like you takes the initiative to start articles like this it places the issue on the world stage with Wikipedia at the center of global attention. You look kind of like a new user, but more like someone who knows their way around wiki. I think you know what you are doing but if I can help with anything then message me anytime. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Dit billede er flot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.189.181 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
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. AusLondonder (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the previous closure, and its subsequent endorsement at DRV were clearly noted on the article's talk page as it existed when you made your nomination.[1]
Per WP:BEFORE point B.4, you should have Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
Before you make any further AFD nominations, please take some time to study WP:BEFORE. Thanks --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I note your comment when starting the AfD that you "don't see the need for a standalone page, though it might get a small entry on the Wikipedia page of United Express Flight 3411." I'm wondering if there was some confusion that we have two articles, one titled United Express Flight 3411 and one titled United Express Flight 3411 incident. In fact, we have only one article, now with "incident" in its name, but it was at the former name when the previous AfD occurred. The article was moved to its present title and the flight name page is now just a redirect which sends readers to the article, so whichever you click on, you'll end up at the same page. Fresh nominations of recently-kept articles are not kindly received (as you can see above), but I thought you might have been confused so I thought I'd try to explain. Don't worry about making mistakes, we all do that at times, just try to learn from them. :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 NY Times Square attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring
Why are you edit-warring? The 2017 Times Square car crash hasn't been confirmed to be deliberate. So what is your rush to change it to civilian attack and say the car is a weapon? Do you have a problem with waiting for some time for confirmation? This isn't a news site or a blog or social media. At most there has been a report by the NY Post of the driver stating he wanted to commit a suicide by cop but it hasn't been confirmed nor the police have stated if it was deliberate or not. When they do then add it. But please stop edit-warring and adding what you want to without confirmation of investigators or police reported by reliable sources. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: Please reconsider your manners. Claiming that I am edit-warring is ridiculous. Read the article about it, before you use those terms. I used the template civillian attack, because that was the most suitable for this occasion. You don't like it? Well, discuss it on the talk page, instead of insulting people.--Rævhuld (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I commented on the talk page but you removed it. And I don't care what the template is, it's not suitable. An attack is deliberate and this is still being probed whether it was. And I didn't insult you. If you don't like the truth, don't falsely blame me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: And you couldn't just discuss this topic with me, right? You just thought that my first edit on that page gave you the right to be a bully? How can it be an edit war when I just edited the page the first time? Instead of just saying "hey, you might have made a mistake" you just got started insulting me. Nice done.--Rævhuld (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Not discuss? Who is not discussing? Did you ever once try to discuss anything? You have edited the page many times. And the number of reverts isn't related to edit-warring. What insult did I made? That to tell you not to make disruptive edits, not to edit-war. I trued to stop it from blowing open. Your edits have been removed many times, yet you stick with the same theme even if your edits are different in manner. And the talk page is not your property, don't try to remove my comment. That is a violation. We are an encyclopedia here of facts, not guess work or do what you want. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't remove comments simply because they are uncivil; talk it out instead. Read WP:TPO for more info (and no, I would not consider it a personal attack, trolling, or vandalism). SkyWarrior 00:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32:You are a bully. And you know it. I used the template "civillian attack". You changed it. I didn't do anything. That would have been enough. But what did you do? You just claimed I was edit-warring, which is an insult (!) if not proven. And how can one edit be an edit war? It can't! And Wikipedia guidelines allow me to delete harassement, which I did. I just don't get why you want to be a bully? Does that make you feel well? PS! I would like to delete my account. People like you are toxic. And yes, I am crying. Hope that at least you enjoy your harassement. If you might want to change ... next time a new user is making a mistake, just write on their talk page "hey, we don't know if it was an attack yet. So you used the wrong template. I fixed it. Kind regards." That would have been enough. But no, you though bullying a new user was the right way. Hope you enjoyed it.--Rævhuld (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
What bully? It was you who stated to me that if I didn't "like" the template, I should discuss. That is not someone who thinks his edit was wrong. I'm not a bully and never bullied anyone here even once. Making false accusations is a violation. On the contrary despite your disruptive behavior, I have tried to be lenient. Only when it was too much did I complain against you. But of course, you complaint against me first. Your edits weren't mostly similiar, but all around the same theme of the attack being "deliberate". Here you represent it as civilian attack, here that the car was a weapon and here as terrorism. All of this is contrary to or not confirmed by sources. Oh and you restored the weapon box, revert. This is disruptive behavior in complete as you keep adding the same theme again basically even though not said so by sources. Not counting your actions at the talk page. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read what has been said on my talk page. SkyWarrior 01:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sarysa: I followed WP:HOWTODELETE. So I don't see doing anything wrong. It takes 5 minutes to create it. So you just have to be pationed.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rævhuld: Fair enough, but given the rapid furious pace on the article's edits, you should have had a statement prepared. Furthermore, you failed to include a reason in the edit summary. From the POV of myself and the other person who edited before you did (assuming you did), it was a drive-by. -- sarysa (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Kayden Gray
Hello Rævhuld,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kayden Gray for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 07:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundby case until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PamD 22:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. What the article needs is to have the information in the sources you have brought to the deletion discussion added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
June 2017
Requesting immediate archiving...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:CitationKneaded. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. - MrX 12:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: I don't get your complain? I just saw a user that might be interested in the case. And I hoped he might be interested in joining the debate. I didn't knew that wasn't allowed?--Rævhuld (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Now that you know it's not allowed, I'm sure you will avoid doing it in the future.- MrX 12:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe you may have closed this discussion without fully understanding the issue at hand. When the discussion was started, the name was given both in Latin script and in Arabic. The question was whether the Arabic should be included in addition to the Latin. WP:ENGLISH dictates that anything that is in Arabic script must also be in Latin, but that wasn't the issue (because the Latin predated the Arabic in this case). TompaDompa (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voldemort: Origins of the Heir until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. Do NOT close discussions that you have taken part in yourself (WP guidelines specifically state that only uninvolved editors should close discussions...), also do NOT close discussions before other editors have a chance to comment in them (one of the discussions you closed was only two hours old...). The vast majority of all talk page discussions also should not be closed at all, since, in principle, only discussions where a consensus has been built need a proper close and a summary of what has been agreed on, and those discussions should definitely NOT be closed before other editors have a chance to weigh in, as you did. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
For creating a series of articles on notable topics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - MrX 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Berlin terrorist plot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
DyK
@Rævhuld: You should nominate the Notre Dame attack for DyK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: I did what you said. I don't know if I did it right. But I tried.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. I also find DkY trick to edit, but I think it will be OK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The "correct" answer to this would be to post a request at Template talk:Portal. But this time you are in luck, as I've stumbled across this help request and am one of the regulars at that talk page. I've made an edit at Module:Portal/images/aliases, and the logo is now showing. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to re-assure you, your first three edits were correct - after creating the main portal page, the box header, and the box footer, you do indeed get a page with empty boxes and a load of red links. But, yes, fixing all those links is quite fiddly. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thank you! I thought I did something wrong :/ ... but if you say everything was right, I will try to do it again. But not now, I have exams in quantum physics next week. Maybe after that. Thank you for your help!
Double !vote
You may have missed my ping from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack page, or I may have done it incorrectly, but you have !voted twice in the discussion – unaware that you had done so, I am sure. It would be best if you were the one to strike your second !vote. – Sigersson (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please avoid these kinds of remarks in the future. I do not know the situation on the German Wikipedia but what your comment is suggesting is grossly inappropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Reflist|4
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hi. Just letting you know that reflist|2/3/4 are all deprecated per Template:Reflist#Columns. If you don't know the best ways to format these are:
{{reflist|35em}} for 2 columns (equivalent to reflist|2)
{{reflist|30em}} for 3 columns (equivalent to reflist|3)
{{reflist|40em}} for 4 columns (equivalent to reflist|4)
Thanks --Jennica✿ / talk 04:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing!
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ibn Ruschd-Goethe mosque requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the template has already been created. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Template Masculinism
If I should need it again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to change the link font colour under Template:Masculinism sidebar. It should be changed to black, when pressed it should change to dark grey. It would be nice if you could help me <3
I rather think that would violate the Manual of style (see particularly the last bulletpoint in MOS:LINKSTYLE). Those links are (and should be) in the standard colour for links on Wikipedia; making them appear black would make them indistinguishable from non-link text in the template. Huon (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
AFDs
Requesting immediate archiving...
You must do a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating for deletion because it's an bad habit to delete something that is clearly notable. Please review that guideline. Thanks. KGirlTrucker81huh?what I've been doing 16:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiProjects, assessments
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hi there,
WikiProject Masculism and WikiProject Men's Issues are the same WikiProject. I noticed you've tagged Talk:Paper abortion and Talk:Masculism redundantly, and with assessments that don't really show an understanding of the standard assessment scheme. Featured Articles go through rigorous peer review processes (see WP:FAC), and there shouldn't really be any time all projects but one indicate an article is C-class while another says A-class. Each project has it's own way of determining when an article meets the threshold, but there are baseline criteria such that it's very clear these articles are not FA and A, respectively. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Masculinism sidebar
It looks like you saw that this overlaps with Template:Masculism, given the note at the top of the template documentation -- so why still place it on articles beside the other one? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Signing your posts
Requesting immediate archiving...
Thank you for your contributions so far. However, I see that when you leave comments on talk pages, you sometimes forget to leave a signature. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) after any and all comments you make on talk pages and noticeboards (and yes, that includes your own talk page). Doing so is considered good practice and helps avoid confusion on who added the comment. Thank you. SkyWarrior 19:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think the issue you brought up about how Wikipedia handles terrorist attacks deserves more attention at the village pump. Were you suggesting more of these incidents are better suited for a place in lists?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rævhuld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hi! An article already exists 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack. This sort of thing happens. What you want to do now is to merge your article into the other article and redirect it there.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice work. I was editing some Belgium articles, and just came back to see what was happening on the Champs-Élysées. Nice work expanding the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
For regularly creating new articles on notable topics, and for diligently expanding and sourcing existing article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rævhuld. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
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. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
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. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Creating stub categories
Please do not create stub categories without first obtaining approval at WP:WSS/P. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
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. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
Hi
I see that you have created an article called Cazza. I notice that the article is still a stub so I have been doing some research on the company and would like to add some text and references to it if you don't mind. If you are okay with it I'll put it up in the next day or so. Thank you. Yaplipa (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yaplipa: That would be great. I just started the stub, because the company was big in the news, so people just could get some background information on the subject on Wikipedia. It would make me happy if you could make the article bigger. Kind regards --Rævhuld (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
I am an epidemiologist and I wanted to express to you directly my concerns about "Kalichman et al. (2007) argue that any protective effects circumcision could offer would be partially offset by increased HIV risk behavior, or “risk compensation" including reduction in condom use or increased numbers of sex partners. They note that circumcised men in the South African trial had 18% more sexual contacts than uncircumcised men at follow-up. They also said that because participants were given ongoing risk-reduction counseling and free condoms, it "reduced the utility of these trials for estimating the potential behavioral impact of male circumcision when implemented in a natural setting." They also criticised current models for failing to account for increased HIV risk behaviour. Increased HIV risk behaviour would mean more women would be infected which would consequently increase the risk of men. It would also mean that non-HIV STI's, which have been associated with increased HIV risk, would increase."
2007 was shortly after the RCTs were published, this is very speculative, and there is subsequently a great deal of evidence that risk compensation does not exist.
I also wanted to disagree concerning your discussion of the strength of evidence that male circ reduces HIV transmission from females to males by 60%. I can tell you that 3 RCTs in different areas are "as good as it gets" and you would be hard pressed to find any evidence stronger than that.
Sincerely, Peter Millard, MD, PhD Petersmillard (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Volunteer Marek
Please don't accuse editors of harassment after templating them three times on the same day, read WP:DTTRDarkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've only come across this dispute because I pass through AN/I every now and then. I have a piece of advice for you: If you carry on as you are, it is not going to end well for you. By all means, carry on if you so desire but it will be suicide-by-admin. I'd start trying to calm this situation down. GoldenRing (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing ... so I should just ignore abusive editors, personal attacking people instead of arguing?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GoldenRing (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you should not ignore abusive editors. However, you really need to learn the difference between abusive editors, editors who disagree with you, and editors who are pointing out genuine problems with your editing. GoldenRing (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you GoldenRing, I have learned a lot by now. <3 ... disruptive editors who bullies people for being new, writing "stupid" and "ridiculous" and thinking that those are actual arguments, not to mention uses personal attacks on a talk page are not blocked. People who point that out are blocked. Good to know. Ever wondered why Wikipedia hasn't any good editors anymore? ;-) --Rævhuld (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Keith Johnston (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Keith Johnston: I would love to, but sadly I have been blocked. Wikipedia blocks people who are being bullied, instead of blocking the bullies.--Rævhuld (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Hopefully it will still be going on when you are unblocked so join us then. Keith Johnston (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving...
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Direct link to discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Usernamekiran. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:John F. Kennedy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Template:Upper Class English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rcsprinter123 (announce) 17:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:CitationKneaded. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. - MrX 12:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.
or 
) located above the edit window.
.svg)
Hello! Your submission of 2017 Notre Dame attack at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jørgen Slots. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
