User talk:Distelfinck

Hello, Distelfinck, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pitch (film) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Pitch (film) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUaCNVfwoog) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrome Release History has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  NeoGeneric 💬  03:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Borat page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republican Party presidential debates, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forum. 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) 09:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am calling about your contribution to Comparison of disc image software. Having reviewed it, I found it to be of very questionable quality and accuracy. Before contributing to an article, please study your own sources and make sure you have an excellent grasp of the subject matter and are familiar with how the article lays out the information. Both these two qualities were absent from your contributions. For example, the fact that something can be done from File Explorer does not mean that File Explorer is doing it.

If you had any questions, I'd be more than glad to answer.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, seems like for one source I copied the wrong URL. But that's no reason to remove everything, like you did in your revert. I'll dig for more sources to convince you that those two programs belong in the article --Distelfinck (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa:, regarding the "Disk Management" program, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are assuming that there is some other program behind the scenes that is doing the actual VHD mounting work. That's probably correct, but a lot of the other programs listed on that comparison article have programs behind them that are invisible to the common user and that are doing the actual work, whereas the program presented to the user is just a UI. So what should we do? Rename the entry from "Disk Management" to "Microsoft Windows"? The background program doing the VHD mounting is part of Windows, so you shold be pleased by this?

--Distelfinck (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am not assuming, I know that there is. VHD can be mounted not just using Logical Disk Manager or File Explorer, but also using Windows PowerShell, diskpart in Windows Command Prompt, DISM (version 6.2 and later) and even Windows Boot Loader. (That's right; Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Windows can boot from .VHD files.) There is a whole API around it and apps that use that API can mount VHD. Mounting and burning ISO images, however, are the work of two independent programs that come bundled with Windows.

And there is a lot of other wrong in your contribution: You have marked File Explorer as being able to "modify", "mount", "extract" and "restore" both VHD and ISO files, whereas according to definition given in the footnote, you only had proof for "mount" for VHD and "mount" and "restore" (burn) for ISO. Finally, you had added explanatory text to fields that were supposed to have only filename extension in them. I think you should have used the talk page to ask about how to properly add them first. Yes, I am afraid a flush-and-do-over is needed.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Thanks, I just added a new entry for Microsoft Windows. In doing this I think I also addressed all issues you raised, except for one: In think some qualifying statements are needed regarding what the software can do with the input files exactly, and that the column for the input formats (named "Input") is the best place for them. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I am impressed how you learned. But still there were mistakes: Windows cannot extract or modify. User can mount and then do the modification and extraction that way, but they all fall into the "mount" category. Otherwise, there would be no point in having a "mount" column at all.

Oh, and one more thing: "Windows" is too general: Windows 10 Mobile, Windows 3.1, Windows RT and Windows CE are all "Windows". But none of them can do any of these things.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ISOs can also be mounted by Windows, but not modified. You are right that mounting then modifying falls under the "mount" category, but it falls under the "modifying" category as well --Distelfinck (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying is about the image file itself. When mounted, the files on the image can be modified but the image itself, no. At least, that's the purpose of the comment there. We can clarify it more, but we can't just change everything in the article to match what you think about mounting or leave one entry inconsistent with others. That's against MOS:STABILITY rule. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the files on the image can be modified but the image itself, no" - this is false. The files are stored in the image, so changing the files changes the image. This is how VHD mounting works in Windows --Distelfinck (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you can't change the sector size of the image or its file system. You can't change the metadata and timestamp either. UltraISO can do all these. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure UltraISO cannot do all modifications imaginable either. Windows can do file changes, which is the most important modification. It is not necessary for Windows, to to be able to do more. The tooltip on the header of the "Modify" column makes that clear --Distelfinck (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's more a testimony to the power of imagination. You can argue on the semantics, no problem. But on the purpose level, "create", "mount" and "modify" are meant to represent three different things that users do to images, even though sometimes all three can be used to accomplish the same task.

If you want more input on this matter from editors, you can try WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"mount" and "modify" are overlapping. If convincing you should fail, I'll try the talk page, then WP:DR --Distelfinck (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Let me show you what is the problem with this argument. You are assuming a scenario that you have files inside an VHD the want read and then, if applicable, edited. Windows does not support extracting the file and then write the changed ones back into the VHD but it can mount it and you can then treat the files as if they are on a disk. So, mounting solves your problem and you don't care much about extraction and direct modification. To you, they seem like another way that is just as good.

The problem is that article is not trying to solve your problem alone. Rather, it is trying to fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views. In essence, mounting, extraction and direct modification are three different things with three different consequences. When someone extracts a file and then changes it, the original copy is not lost until the user explicitly writes over it via mounting + copying over or direct modification. So, when you put "yes" in front of "Extracts?" in the article, you are saying this scenario is supported. Mounting usually needs either administrative privileges or a file system driver. Extraction and direct modification need neither. Extraction and editing needs additional disk space but mounting and editing may not. Even the word "extract" itself collocates with archive and image files and has a different meaning than copying off.

Please note that this was my original concern when I first reverted your edit. So, yes, you need to take this to the talk page if you still disagree.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm currently out of time, so I'll respond to you at a later time --Distelfinck (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you keep trying to do with the Omar Mateen article. Once officials involved with the investigation confirm that some people were killed and/or wounded by police, then we can change it. But WP:OR exists for a reason. So please, knock it off until we get more concrete evidence. Parsley Man (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you bring this up at ANI, only to remove it moments later when I make a response? Okay... Parsley Man (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Omar Mateen 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 article's 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—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN beat me to it by 1 minute. Here's the diffs: initial edit, 1, 2, 3 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Omar Mateen. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That block is justified --Distelfinck (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically 2022 FIFA World Cup, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the table, BTW. It made things organized and comprehensible, so we're not all just spinning our wheels in talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear. Thank you for your help --Distelfinck (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Distelfinck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the correct pronunciation of Knaus is given here (pg. 142; U with inverted breve below; examples: nauk, Dachau). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks --Distelfinck (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to write this using the IPA though. Perhaps User:Doremo can help. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Doremo --Distelfinck (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the vowel length marking; otherwise it is correct. Doremo (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page PewDiePie, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that change was not intentional on my side (copy-paste-error, late at night), but I think you might have actually picked the wrong canned message here, as it seems the change wasn't from one national variety to another, or am I wrong, AusLondonder? --Distelfinck (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. The page is already designated as using British English so I was simply restoring that variety to the page. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, looked into it again, turns out that's what you did. Although Wikipedia says (not saying it is correct, just quoting) "The -ize spelling is often incorrectly seen as an Americanism in Britain." --Distelfinck (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit you removed a source of a notable person using the term which is later defined in the article. By the way Mike Cernovich is notable as much as you don't like him, I don't either, but removing sources due to personal belief is not what we do here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this edit [1]. I understand that the term was initially used by manospheres and incels to refer to themselves, however today the term is associated with alt-right activist, it appears you have some bias here, please do not add unsourced information OR remove sourced information. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Distelfinck,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Distelfinck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (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 recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 any 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.

Woodroar (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Distelfinck. 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, Distelfinck. 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! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:10, 24 October 2020 (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 climate change. 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Distelfinck, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as . Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sro23 Disclose to whom? And for what purpose? It's not against policy to use multiple accounts --Distelfinck (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Did you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry? Why do you need two accounts? Sro23 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sro23 For privacy, which is listed as a legitimate use. I did read it and it says "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account." I interpreted that as not needing to tag the account, maybe I was wrong? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sro23 I apologize for not tagging the account. Could you please unblock the account and oversight any connections between the two accounts. I promise to place a tag on the userpage saying that it's an alternative account for privacy reasons. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the account. Please note that any inappropriate use of it will result in both your alt and main accounts receiving blocks. Sro23 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Distelfinck (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2021 (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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wp:dropthestick and wait until some reputable study supports claims that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19 in order to challenge the view it is misinformation to claim it is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. This is not a hill you will not die on.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it's beneficial. I said it needs a source, in the article. You can keep adding potential sources to the talk page but it's not helping --Distelfinck (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need new sources, when a consensus of editors has, on several occasions, agreed that the sourcing we currently have supports the statement? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned here and on the talk page. Multiple users have said you are wrong, it is now time to back way before it is taken to wp:ani. And you are right you are not saying it is, you are saying that we can't say the claim is misinformation. This will be my last word here, you have been warned, what you do is up to you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ani is for major breaches of policy. I would advise against reporting this issue there. You are on the wrong side of our attitudes towards covid information.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Getting wet and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Getting wet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]