Signedzzz, I reverted your edits to the lede of Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania, because your revised lede would indicate that this page focuses entirely on the six-diocese grand jury investigation. The title of the page is more general than that; it covers all of Pennsylvania. So -- as it now stands -- the lede needs to be more general.
However, after thinking about your edits, I'm wondering if the page should focus solely on the six-diocese investigation. I've started a section about this on the article's talk page, in case you want to weigh in. Thanks!! — Lawrence King (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Signedzzz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello, thanks for your recent updates at United States of America v. Joaquín Guzmán Loera. BTW, I re-added El Chapo's reaction when the verdict was made. Found a source from the NYT that mentions he was stunned when the verdict was read (the title of the article mentions it, and it is currently at the NYT's main page). Feel free to make the appropriate changes. MX (✉ • ✎) 03:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
- User:MX Thanks for the note. The NYT does say he looked "vaguely stunned"; my reservation is that he cannot be looking both "stunned" and "resigned" (per AP) simultaneously, hence why I think it is better to simply not comment on any interpretations of his facial expression. Frankly, I suspect some kind of schadenfreud is infecting some of the reporting here. I think I'll probably leave it, though, if no one else sees a problem. zzz (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— JFG talk 11:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please read this notice carefully.
You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.
A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means
uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the
purpose of Wikipedia, our
standards of behaviour, or relevant
policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as
editing restrictions,
bans, or
blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged
here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hello, I noticed recent additions to:
2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks
You may also consider adding some of your content to the main page on the topic as well, because it is in need of some updates and improvements ...
2019 Yuen Long violence
Thanks for your help!!! : )
65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I agree it's in need of improvement. I'll have a look. I'm not convinced the attack needs its own page right now, though. zzz (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Well, some editors are cutting content from the Yuen Long section on the HK protests page, and saying it should go to the "main" page where a longer article is more appropriate ... there was already a discussion to merge, and it failed. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think that makes any sense, since the "main" page is already much longer. zzz (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I mean that content is being shifted from here: 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks to the "main topic page" which is here: 2019 Yuen Long violence
- Yes, I understand. I don't see any further need for that. zzz (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply