User talk:Pudeo

This user may have left Wikipedia. Pudeo has not edited Wikipedia since 13 March 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

April 2006–June 2018

The talk page 💌📫

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

You've been here long enough to know this. No edit on Wikipedia, with the exception of BLP-violations and pro=pedophilia, are immune from having to be discussed. WP:V does not require that every piece of information be verfied, it requires that every piece of information be verifiable. The information you removed was certainly verifiable, the question now id" should it be in the article. That requires discussion, and you are required to start that discussion when asked to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: reverting an unsourced IP addition is not a bold edit. Or should we talk which came first, the egg or the chicken? Besides being unsourced, it doesn't fit the lead, in my opinion, because the other descriptions are mostly policies like opposition to immigration, protectionism, anti-globalization whereas Nazism is an ideology and on a whole different level (although right-wing populism is also an ideology). --Pudeo (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it being made by an IP have any relevance? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert myself on that edit until I can take a closer (and more clear-eyed) look at it tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Alright. I don't even feel that strongly about it, I just think it comes as off. And no problem about the ANI thread, admittedly messing up with the font size would be a pretty clever way to troll people, if you wanted to cause disruption. --Pudeo (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, you were correct. Since there's no mention of Nazism or nao-Nazism in the rest of the article, it should not be in the lede. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is something wrong with your talk page? he print appears to be completely unreadable. Please respond here because I will not be able to read any response you pst here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Puedo, regarding archives - provided you keep your archive(s) intact and just cut and paste from your main talk page there would be little strength to any argument you were trying to hide anything; leaving a archive box right at the top of your page would also make it very clear that old talks can be found. Your page isn't so large to be "disruptive", but it could be difficult for some editors to use if they are on mobile browsers, etc. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Alright, I've done my first archive ever. I just found it somewhat amusing to have some embarassing talk page messages from 2006 visible and I guess I took some pride in never having removed any criticism or warnings from my talk page, given how sensitive some people are with their talk pages. But it's true 270 000 bytes is quite massive so it's better for others. --Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and best wishes! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just in reply to your post at ANI, I'm a bit startled to see you called me a "SPA for Australian military history" (do multiple FAs on topics with no relationship at all with Australian military history count for nothing?) and compared me to someone who you acknowledge uses Holocaust denial language. You're entirely welcome to take a different view to me on whether the editor should remain active on Wikipedia, but that kind of insult is really uncalled for. I'd suggest that you avoid the personal abuse in future, and I'd be grateful if you could apologise. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I can sincerely apologize to you, and I do so: sorry for that. That wasn't needed for the point I was making. Mind you, the real reason I jabbed like that was mostly my annoyance from the ArbCom case. You have written many detailed articles about Australian military history, which I applaud you for, but you were far too defensive to the conduct of KEC in the evidence section. How come, someone who writes articles about detailed military history, not protest removal of "intricate detail" from German military articles? Certainly I don't expect any "MilHist project camaraderie" (btw - although I was called a MilHist 'regular' a couple of times, I've never done anything in the project except join it a decade ago), but still it irked me to see that from an experienced editor in the field. Of course I shouldn't carry on grievances like that, and that's why I apologize. --Pudeo (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Regarding the ArbCom case, I largely agree with KEC's edits, though I think they went over the top at times and should have made more use of centralised discussions. Many of the biography articles of German war heroes are hagiographies, which present their subjects without context and are based in a rather disreputable literature which exaggerates the achievements of the German military while ignoring its central role in the Nazi regime and its crimes. The articles on World War II people developed by editors such as Peacemaker67 and Ian Rose are much better models IMO: they're too the point and place their subjects in proper context. There can be a tendency among people interested in military history (and Wikipedia editors in particular, I suspect) to focus on purely military details and loose sight of the bigger picture on the grounds that it's somehow 'political'. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:VOTESTACKING. Please don't do it again. - MrX 🖋 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: How come? I've never interacted with any of them, I don't know their opinions. If K.e.coffman's page is humour like you say, they'll probably say they're not bothered by the page and I can withdraw it. Besides, it's courtesy to let editors know about a deletion discuss of a page that they are the contents of. --Pudeo (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged them and posted a non-neutral message because you hope they will vote with you. You can't do that.- MrX 🖋 18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a non-neutral message in any way, to be honest. I asked a neutral question. If they think it's humour, my argument is void. But I understand the concern, obviously the closing admin will have to take into account the fact opinions were asked from the people who the page is about, if they decide to respond. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, offering free information is never constructive. Better to offer garbage content in sub-professional English like almost everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4b00:7ab:15de:358c:bf9b:59aa (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you read the talk page for the portuguese article for the Brazilian military dictatorship article. There is a FAQ there that might be of interest. Use Google translater if you will.

But i'll translate for you the first part:

"Why this article was published as Fifth Brazilian Republic is classified as a dictatorship?"

Answer: "It is an academic consensus that this period was a dictatorship. Basic characteristics of a democracy, such as the right to oppose the government, did not exist. Any political dissident was arrested and tortured, typical characteristics of a dictatorship. All this was accentuated by the institution of the AI-5, which gave the president the power to suspend for 10 years the political rights of any citizen and to dissolve federal, state and municipal elective mandates."

All the sources in the article, both articles really, name that regime a dictatorship. If the sources say that, then it is. WP:V: all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.

Hope this is clear now. If you want to change it, use the article's talk page. But engage in WP:POINT. Coltsfan (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coltsfan: the 1993 (someone's been going through the archives!) New York Times article has him saying he's favouring a dictatorship, but the others sources don't mention it. US News "He is a far-right candidate representing a certain segment of the electorate who favor a return to a military government." You realize we need pretty good sources for saying someone supports dictatorship?

Current name of the article is Brazilian military government. And the military rule had more authoritarian periods than others. It was an authoritarian junta. Whether to call it a dictatorship is a further POV question. For instance, when Fidel Castro died there was an extensive debate here whether he should be called a dictator (Cuban regime killed atleast 4000 dissidents, offer no political rights for non-party members etc.) That's the deal. You might want to propose moving the article if you think there are bullet-proof sources for unequivocally calling it a dictatorship. --Pudeo (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's basicly a Duck test. If it looks like a dictatorship, swims like a dictatorship, and quacks like a dictatorship, then it probably is a dictatorship. Most of the academic, historical and jornalistic sources name that government a dictatorship, simply because it fells under the characteristics of a typical dictatorship. According to the sources, there was no real democracy, the president had the power to overrule both the legislative and judicial branches and there was only one oposition party, the Brazilian Democratic Movement, that was sanctioned by the government but had no real power (it's not uncomon for dictatorships to have puppet oposition parties to give an idea of democracy. North Korea and Syria do that, for instance). And Bolsonaro's support for the 1964-85 dictatorship is also not even in question: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

The problem is definently not the lack of sources (Reuters, The New York Times, DW, Channel News Asia, The Washington Post, US News, etc...).

There are sources in portuguese, if you can read them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you want, i can also list books here.

I'll propose the change in the name of the other article, after the election cycle ends over there in Brazil. But, according to the sources at hand, and plenty more to choose from, that government was a military dictatorship. At least among historians and scholars (and even journalist), there is no debate. It supressed personal freedoms, non authorized oposition was persecuted, dissidents were tortured, exiled or killed and the presidents had full power and ruled above the law.

PS: Brazil had two juntas during the 1964-1985 period, true. But, all the 5 generals that ruled, ruled alone. Again, if you want more sources, i can provide'm. Coltsfan (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently reverted an edit[1] at the Abortion and Mental Health article. Please consider adding more regarding your reasoning on the talk page where there is an active discussion regarding the question of whether there are POV problems with this article. I feel comments from more editors would be helpful.––Saranoon (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saranoon: No, sorry, I don't think I'll do that since it looks like to be a waste of time since you are dealing with well-connected editors who are entrenched to oppose the source on ideological grounds. There's no compromise in sight, so it's useless to contribute in my opinion, and that would be time-consuming. You could try WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN noticeboards, but chances are you would be piled on by watchdogs, despite having a strong case for the inclusion of this strong source. --Pudeo (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well, those well connected editors have, after threats by MastCell to have me banned for putting a POV tag on the article, have placed me under a 3 month ban[2] against editing anything to do with abortion. I had thought that your voice in support of the POV notice and giving some weight to good sources would have helped to demonstrate that their "consensus" is not as complete as they claim and that other editors do have a right to follow policy in regard to inclusion of other sources. Please reconsider at some future date. Your voice can surely make a difference.–Saranoon (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is on my watchlist. Your post here brought this matter to my attention, not any backchannel communication. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether I agree with your stand at Enterprisey's RfA or not, I love a good discussion; and I came here to say that I appreciate frank views and I appreciate great conversations. And you've started quite a good one. I also appreciate the way you've been responding. So, in my opinion, well done. If there's anything you might need my assistance in, in the future, don't hesitate to ask. Warmly, Lourdes 02:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: thanks. I remember when I was studying German in secondary school, my teacher asked "why do you always have to be the contrarian?" in class. So I guess it's a trait, but I don't participate in discussions just to stir things up or to troll, I think it's reasonable to oppose on the grounds that someone's "CV" is brilliant with some technical details but there is no record of things I consider most important. Sometimes it can definitely be healthy to question things, even if it costs you precious "reputation points". If I need assistance, will do! --Pudeo (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2019

Unlike Lourdes, I do not consider it to be a good or healthy discussion, and more precisely to be an excessive and unnecessary stain on a serious RfA that is certainly destined to pass. There is a distinct difference between discussion and just stirring things up or to troll. Perhaps you could still find the good grace to understand that such voting is what puts people off from running for adminship and reconsider your vote before the RfA closes. You would gain reputation ppoinnts for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As another voter on this RfA, I have to say I agree with Kudpung re: the difference between substantive discussions and stirring things up, and I think you should reconsider your vote. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. RfAs can be stressful if people go around digging all the things you did years ago to find every flaw, but I don't think it should be a big deal to politely disagree with the nom. --Pudeo (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

Finland
... you were recipient no. 1836 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: You are free to remove anything related to these, as I have no particular interest in them. Also I have little trust in your judgment as you have defended users like Jytdog. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ratio Cantina. (Space-free in the original, of course.) Qwirkle (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right...? That army code word or CAPTCHA stuff. But no en-wiki or global edits. --Pudeo (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pudeo, is it possible please that you could keep an eye on the Anthony J. Hilder page as I am concerned about some recent edits. Well, not so much concerned about them as such at this stage, but more what may happen later. The article is up for Deletion discussion. I have been a major contributor to the article. I have expanded others such as Deane Waretini and Lou Dorren etc and I admit with the Hilder one I did get carried away on it and piled too much stuff in it. Fair enough, it should be trimmed to a better size and have content best suited to Wikipedia guidelines. Anyway, I sense something strange about the arrival of a recent editor. I was just wondering if you could please keep an eye on it just to make sure not massive chunks of content are taken out that may make it look flimsy if you get my drift. Thanks
Karl Twist (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from hounding MjolnirPants, as you appear to have been doing for the last few months.[3][4][5][6] It is generally considered very inappropriate to repeatedly show up at ANI every time an editor you have disputed with is mentioned there to request that they be blocked. If you think he is uncivil, then you can just ignore him; showing up every time his name comes up at ANI to support sanctions against him implies you are not concerned about his civility (if he was really uncivil enough that you don't enjoy interacting with him, why would you seek him out?). Please just leave him alone and write articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had to act on it, even when it meant I had to scrutinize diffs. I'm sorry it turned out this way, but it was also possile to dial down the "fuck off"s after the first ANI thread. I really dislike the negativity at ANI so I certainly didn't have fun, but I think it resulted in Wikipedia being a better place because no one should be abused like that. In the October 2018 thread there were plenty of people who were directed obscenities at who agreed with me, but just didn't have the guts themselves to open an ANI thread because it's not a nice environment and takes a thick skin. I don't mind getting my hands dirty. --Pudeo (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking ANI off your watchlist, and only show up there if your name is mentioned. You'll be much happier that way. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: I don't watchlist it, I just visit and see from the contents table if there's anything interesting usually. But yes, I do plan on taking a long vacation from dramaboards (unless this one turns into RFAR, I suppose). BTW I remember and respect you from your participation in the DangerousPanda ArbCom case which was mostly about civility too. He refused my block appeal back in the day by calling me a liar and then attacked the admin who rightly unblocked me. Pudeo (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't just check in on occasion: every time MPants found himself at ANI (thanks, invariably, to a sockpuppet trolling him) you jumped in and proposed restrictions, without regard to the obvious fact that the threads were opened by trolls for the specific purpose of harassing him, and in the latest instance you explicitly opposed closing the thread to allow everyone to move on with their lives. That's really not cool. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I find it unseemly to have votes for sanctions. I recommend not proposing sanctions. Instead, say what’s wrong and ask that it be stopped. Whatever unlucky admin decides to close the thread will then have to figure out what if anything is needed to stop the negative behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the Soviet Union in World War II I just redid it so it it said the number what the Russian government puts it at

And for the excess mortality under Joseph Stalin for the older edit that was when I was really starting out and had no idea what I was doing and for the other one it was redid because I made a mistake with it Jack90s15 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack90s15: I am usually very receptive to new editors and don't mind if you don't handle everything right at first, but in this case I think you have caused a bit of a mess with not attributing sources right and it has happened in several articles. I'll wait for comments by others first. --Pudeo (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained with the articles you showed what happened with them and I was recommended to join the WikiProject Military history and to ask for help to on my talk page so that is what I am going to doJack90s15 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted an SPI on one of the frequent offenders, which was almost directly shot down. I am reasonably certain that investigation would “find the guilty bastard guilty”, as me old First Sergeant used to say, but I am very uncomfortable with dumping the evidence into a public space. We might as well be giving them instructions on how to sock better, you ask me... Some time late next week or the week after, would you mind looking at an email on this, or could you recommend someone? Qwirkle (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Sure, my email is enabled. I believe the issue you are referring to has been discussed elsewhere with inconclusive results (the opinion of editors I trust the most with catching sockpuppets think it's very suspicious, but they also find some things that would suggest they are not necessarily the same person). --Pudeo (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox Finnish municipality. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notification that the RexxS Bureaucrat Chat case request has been declined by the committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and apologies. --Pudeo (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Patriotic People's Movement (Finland) logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel really frustrated to have my work at all discredited by the suggestion that I may be a sock. Can I ask you to look at my history to hopefully take back the accusation? I think you can see my editing/talk page comments were unskilled at first and improved over time. But the explanation for my experience with detective work is that after I made an edit to WP:Xennials I was confronted by what I found to be an extremely abusive personality, who I think was the first editor I ever interacted with on Wikipedia. (DynaGirl).[7] I mostly sent my research by email, but you can see here how involved the work was from another editor's comments [8]. Most of the work was investigating what I had thought were her socks on the Xennials article and other generations articles. [9], [10]

Feel free to email me. I see you've been here thirteen years so I can probably trust you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a sockpuppet, unless there is evidence indicating so, which there isn't. But sleeping for a couple of years, then turning active and fluent at AN/I certainly makes many people suspect it's someone's new account. Given that some sockpuppets have recently gone long undetected and caused frustration, I'll reserve the right to remain skeptical but don't hold anything against you without evidence. Happy editing. --Pudeo (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how that could look. Context for what I was doing at AN/I might help: SashiRolls "invited me to correct what [they] felt was Snoogans' copyright violation [11]; here at ANI [they] have accused Snoogans of copyright violation; I saw and continue to see what I feel is dishonesty, which I do not appreciate." Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pudeo. There is an ongoing dispute regarding a claim made in the lede of the article on Julius Evola. Since you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, I was wondering whether you had any input or suggestions on how to proceed in the current discussion. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think it's healthy to move on and not engage disputes from two years ago. --Pudeo (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I work for a list of intersex sportspeople in the German Wikipedia. For this the exact living dates of Mark Weston (athlete) would nice to know. Here you gave the exact date referenced with [12]. Because of I have no acces on it, it would be nice of you if you send me article to the adress habitator.terrae@e.mail.de - thank you very much! Habitator terrae (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Habitator terrae: sorry - I do not have access to the article anymore. However, you could try to request someone to send it to your email here. ODNB is subscription only - but it can be accessed from pretty much any public library in the UK. --Pudeo (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I will request there(, because it would be a to long way from Germany to the next public library UK;) --Habitator terrae (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:True Finns logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Raystorm#Discussion_where_you're_mentioned - Raystorm said pings weren't working for them. You might want to alert them on their talk page for a response. starship.paint (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh they just responded to the post above yours, so I suppose they'll be reading yours as well. [13] starship.paint (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though they seem to be reading. --Pudeo (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1951 Australian Communist Party ban referendum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News (check to confirm | 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) 19:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in the enforcement matter. I am not sure what Snooganssnoogans' issue is, but my recent edits have been anything but falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears. JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate it, it's irrelevant, and you know that perfectly well. Please don't @ me over such a nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ok. You still don't understand that when the suspected perpetrator has been publicly connected to the crime in high-circulation publications like the NYT or WaPo, it's no longer something that needs to be hush-hush in Wikipedia, though, and that was the main point. It's not what BLPCRIME is about. --Pudeo (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just as a heads up, part of the reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist took so long to close was that your report was somewhat difficult to follow. When I was an admin or even before I passed RfA, I would always format it something like this if it was a complex case:

[Insert narative here]

Socks have [similarity here]: [Diff of sock 1], [Diff of sock2]

They also have: [Diff of sock 1], [Diff of sock 2]

etc.

[Any closing context that may be helpful here]

You obviously don't have to have that exact format, but putting the diffs of socks side-by-side and saying how they relate makes it easier for us to look at it. Just as a heads up so that things might get processed quicker next time. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fair advice. The problem here was that I was finding new information after I filed it so it turned into a sort of a mindflow. It could have been completely re-written afterwards to be clearer. --Pudeo (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Leo Skurnik 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! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I promoted your Leo Skurnik hook with the single article and thought that this article also deserves an appearance on DYK. Could you please add the words that verify the hook in the offline source to the nomination template? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

valereee (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pudeo, Do you have a page somewhere that lists your expectations of the standards for admin. If so can you please point me to it. Regarding the number of years/months of active service, what is your expectations for a good admin candidate ? I am asking this simply out of my own curiosity. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 16:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and hope you are enjoying your Friday. The answer is no, but generally I don't think it's controversial to think that 1.5 years of active editing is not much. The nominee does not have much experience in article space, which maybe they would if they'd been here for longer. But criticizing lack of experience is not personal, it's just saying WP:NOTYET. 3+ years would be decent? I think the prospect of getting adminship "too soon" has the risk that we still don't fully know the editor and it opens a quick path for "broilerhouse" admins. --Pudeo (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Friday has been great so far, looking forward to the weekend. Thanks for the kind response, as I already noted this discussion is solely to satisfy my own curiosity, and I dont intend to influence your vote on the RfA. I did start this thread after seeing your comment, but that is all. The number of years of service expected from a candidate differs from person to person. I do agree that 1.5 years is not much but it is still enough to judge. I have seen people expecting min 1 year as well, but most expect a 1.5-2 year range, which is understandable for the reasons you gave. Min 3 years of experience is on the higher side I feel, and if I recall correctly this is the biggest I have seen among the RfA standards. IMHO the candidate's maturity is more important than the number of months. Can you take a look at my xtool and comment if I satisy your experience criteria. Thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your level-headed contributions like this one but also many others. When encountering behaviour that may be perceived as provocative, it is usually better to not be provoked but instead have a cup of tea. It is a struggle at times. All the best, A Thousand Words (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@1Kwords: Thanks, and that is correct, although sometimes you have to stand your ground when you know you are on firm soil. --Pudeo (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conan (dog) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan (dog) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 06:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending me yesterday, was busy and didn't even see what was going on so very much appreciate it. Will continue to do my best to improve the website. Edit5001 (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please show evidence of "a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." that involves me, Objective3000, and Snooganssnoogans, or strike your comments. Editing the same articles is not the definition of tag team. Your accusation is a blatant personal attack.

I will not ask twice. - MrX 🖋 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, I came here to warn you to never make a baseless attack of tag-teaming again only to find MrX got here first. Now, will you call this tag-teaming because we are making the same complaint within minutes after your egregious attack? Retract your defamatory accusations. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There are 93 articles that you all three have edited within 10 minutes, and 236 articles you have edited in the same 24 hrs period. I believe you have never once disagreed, and indeed seem to target editors like SashiRolls in individual disputes to turn it into 2-3 v. 1. It's there for everyone to see, and in no way a personal attack. --Pudeo (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a damnable lie. We both have been editing AP2 articles for years. We don't disagree because we both have the same understanding of NPOV, BLP and DUE. Frankly, I don't even know his politics. Hell, I'm not sure of my own. An interaction report between me and an active editor I never agree with would show the same. O3000 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pudeo. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this was all profoundly unnecessary for someone as proficient as yourself, but you know how scripts can be... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is appreciated. Better safe than sorry. Thanks. --Pudeo (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Truly no implication here, I am just making sure anyone who has edited Race and intelligence in the past two weeks has been properly alerted. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better notice would be that if you are wise, you don't touch that topic with a ten feet pole :-) --Pudeo (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t (and don’t) know whether I could have requested nuking that unwanted archive myself. Qwirkle (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: No problem, I've done some similar misclicks. Good thing I don't use that archiving script myself, or else it would seem like I was being framed as a sockmaster! --Pudeo (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 million dollars Chinamiing (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me 5 million dollars Chinamiing (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC )

I think Chinese censuses and Human Rights Watch Asia testimonials reports are reliable sources for mass death by torture of intimate parts with burning sticks in wombs and winding with strings, thread or cord of Chahar Mongols in Inner Mongolia but Pudeo writes that they are not. The source for the Case of the Party of Inner Mongolia and the mass death that can be seen from the censuses difference although prohibited to reveal the figures in China are available via the Chinese census figures as available and from the Human Rights Watch Asia testimony by a Turkish Uyghr available in 2005 or one year earlier or one year later and also there are references in "Wild Swans" by Yung Chang or Qiang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.245.35 (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have stayed away for a few days, but after a blatant PA against me [[14]], and now these accusations of users grave dancing I will not remain silent. The ANI thread about Hijiri88 ‎had not been "inactive for weeks" I can see posts dated the 30th the 29th the 28th (all from Hijiri88, that is not inactivity). In fact the longest single gap between posts seems to be 4 days (not weeks), and that "breach" is another post from Hijiri88 (when he unarchived the thread [[15]]), if that had not been done this souold have been closed weeks ago with no action. Moreover this [[16]] implies he may not in fact have retired, as does [[17]]. He was in fact still active in pursuing grievances, thus it was reasonable to think he was not retired (and the comment about me above, plus much else on their talk page demonstrates they are still not in fact retired, they are still commenting on other users, and even watching what they do, how else did he know what I had posted on my user page?). Maybe if he had retired when he said he would I could not have pointed out he is still active.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I agree, but since you are not inteaction banned, you could post this to AN. Though the thread is mostly about the personal attack. --Pudeo (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What thread?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: This new one. --Pudeo (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a bit of it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your user page jogged my memory that you are from/in Finland (I think I knew that from the unnameable site), and I saw there that you have created articles on plane crashes. Long ago, someone asked me to create an article on the Turenki rail accident, but I couldn't find adequate sources, partly because I can't search well enough in Finnish (I can count from 1 to 10, but that's about it). I gather it still hasn't been written up here. Please could I request it? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: Apparently that is the deadliest train accident in the country, so it should warrant an article. There is little information about it because it happened during war-time and information about it was suppressed, and it's still reflecting to it. The 2016 source cited in the Finnish WP article is paper-only, and the only other sources I could find are two 1990s local newspaper (Laitilan Sanomat) articles quoted verbatim (apparently with a permission) on a 3rd party website: [18][19]. Not too many sources, but I might atleast create a start-class article later. Eyes are getting tired from doing all this remote work in front of this screen, so perhaps not a good idea to write anything that takes time yet! --Pudeo (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all I found on a new search yesterday was this at Yle about the memorial at the station. I'd be grateful, poor lads should be remembered. However, I see the deadliest in peacetime isn't covered here yet either, so I'm not too surprised that no one has written an article in the years since someone first drew my attention to it. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this complaint, can you say what is meant by 'yellow filter triggers'? Is there some actual filter? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Apparently they are not filters, but the AI-controlled revision scoring system: mw:ORES review tool. That's what I meant, my settings showed almost all of that IP's edits as likely damaging. --Pudeo (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your advice I went to Special:Preferences/Watchlist#mw-prefsection-watchlist, viewed the 'Revision scoring' section and turned on the 'May have problems' level. Then I do see that most of the IP's edits are marked in yellow when I view their contributions! That could turn out to be a labor-saving device. But may not be easy to cite in a block message... ('Too much yellow in their contribs?'). Thanx, EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the IPs you mentioned at AN3 (besides the one blocked) only Special:Contributions/24.228.198.157 shows up as currently active and also as getting their edits flagged by ORES. The IP is distinguished by their pretentious edit summaries (like 'fairness and specificity') but I don't see very many edits worth reverting as yet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thanks for looking at it, and so it seems that all other IPs are inactive. Suppose that it's still good to get that on record, because he'll be back sooner or later. Heh yeah, the ORES tool is a very handy setting to have on -- the only downside is that if you get lazy you won't look at problematic edits that aren't flagged by it. --Pudeo (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Puedo, so it's been about a month since a consensus conversation was done about the state of the lead sentence in the Camp of the Saints article. I was wondering as to when we should come to a conclusion on that. Based on the history of edits, it still seems that people are still having edit fights over it. I do not normally get into conflict with stuff such as this since I try to stay as neutral as possible. Based off the month long discussion, I think most people agree that the term "racist" should be removed from the first sentence. I believe that the second introduction paragraph that I wrote and researched a couple months back would suffice given the content of the sources, most of which I researched and read myself. I'm not familiar with how these work in particular, so please let me know if you know how to proceed. Thanks, AdvancedScholar (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AdvancedScholar: Hello. I have already requested a closure for it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It is yet to be seen if, how and when that will happen. --Pudeo (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked your TFD for the NOTHERE block message to WP:AN for a wider discussion, as it's not just about a template, it's a standardised block reason built into Special:Block and the Twinkle extensions. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. --Pudeo (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on the noticeboard, which might have been a mistake. I must apologize for my behavior these past few days. Looking back it's obvious that I've been acting irrational. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to remedy the situation, but i will go back and remove the offending comments. If there's a better way to remedy the situation, I'm willing to listen, and i will do my best to avoid personal attacks in the future. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is really good that you can reflect on it. I won't further comment the thread yet, though, as no one else has yet offered input. --Pudeo (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JzG and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

The case request "JzG" that you are a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators " title="Special:PermanentLink/962683413">voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an arbitration clerk who is tasked with, amongst other things, maintaining good order on arbitration pages. I have read your statement at the SashiRolls case request and would like to remind you about the no personal attacks policy and that allegations on arbitration case requests should be backed up with evidence. Please ensure that your statement follows relevant policies and guidelines, and that you provide evidence to support any allegations you make. If you would like clarification on this, do ask. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Oh, just noticed now that this was a personal message for me, since it never crossed my mind anything I posted would be close to a personal attack. You wrote that allegations on arbitration case requests should be backed up with evidence. Is 9 diffs not enough? --Pudeo (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, specifically MastCell rushed to close the thread because El_C's comment did not call for a siteban. wasn't supported with evidence which showed this. You do say before hand that their last logged action was in September 2019, but this does not prove that he "rushed" to do anything nor that this was because El_C did not call for a siteban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, that's my own interpretation of what happened and I offered it as a statement. He closed the thread before the requested time extension by SR and that was after EL C's comment turned the trend in the discussion, so the action happened between those two events. I backed previous side-picking with AE diffs. That phrasing could have been nicer, but I feel like this is a bit of a hair-splitting. Thank you for the feedback anyhow, I appreciate it. --Pudeo (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you, Pudeo, for salvaging a compelling sockpuppet report from an inadequate topic ban appeal. Your attention to detail is much appreciated, especially when it comes from an overlooked perspective. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Thanks, and you also made quite some efforts to investigate yourself with regard to compiling the IP addresses and the messages he had posted. Great! Behavioral analysis is quite tedious work - abusing multiple accounts is much easier. Returning after 12 years must be one of the most unusual cases.--Pudeo (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two for two, excellent job. — Newslinger talk 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the great work in investigating and reporting sock puppet accounts! Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to say the same thing. Just when I was starting to despair that Wikipedia had become a post-truth environment where the rules apply to some but not to others, I saw your SPI filing and my faith was (faintly) restored. There ought to be more of you.TheBlueCanoe 17:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of swastikas in a recent WP:AN post, reminded me of a long ago conversation with a friend. We were discussing the use of "symbols" from an artistic viewpoint. I made an offhand remark that Buddhists used a form of swastika as a religious symbol.

My friend turned to me in concern, and said: "Why would the Buddhists use this symbol? Didn't they know that Hitler had already used it?" I had to explain that "the Buddhists came first", etc.

Thought you might like a chuckle. But it seems that people are still making similar mistakes. Pinging Levivich, who also has a sense of humor, hope you don't mind Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: Indeed, and such conceptions were a reason why I wanted to share the curiosity, though perhaps that is inadvisable because things can be sensitive. It had been used in prehistoric times, like in most of Europe, and here the national painter Akseli Gallen-Kallela incorporated it in many state emblems and decorations. I don't know if you are a military history buff at all, but there is a picture of the Soviet Marshal Kliment Voroshilov brandishing a Finnish swastika decoration after the war: [20]. --Pudeo (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the use in Finland, will study, thanks. I am not a military history buff, (sorry) and I cannot seem to see a swastika in the ref/link provided, but nonetheless, I "get the picture", so to speak. It is logical that basic geometric forms would be used throughout human history, and have various meanings assigned by different cultures. I respect Buddhist thought, etc. But I would never offend my Jewish friends, or "disturb the memory" of my late FIL, (who served in Europe with the US Army) by displaying this Buddhist symbol...However, even Dad would have been perfectly comfortable with your photo of a museum exhibit of airplanes.

Symbols are powerful, no doubt. Consider the "Christian cross" which originally represented a cruel death of torture, and has been transformed in meaning over @2000 years. Prior to 1746 in Scotland, a Fiery Cross signaled a gathering of the clans, and a declaration of war. So again, a symbol has changed, and been co-opted, this time by the KKK. Scottish heritage festivals, etc, at least here in the Southern US, do NOT feature reinactments of clan-gathering cross burnings. (Brrr...)

As decent people of goodwill, we must be sensitive to the new meanings of old symbols. But others should be aware of their past meanings, and not rush to judgemnt. Context! Okay, I will climb down from my soapbox. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Detective Pudeo! starship.paint (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, strawberries are really good. The only issue is that if you have been picking them yourself, you start associating them with lower back pain. --Pudeo (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor strawberry farmers - and dentists! starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

It looks like they are trolling again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_crimes&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=WikipedianManiac&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.1.0 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jack90s15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.1.0 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.155.203.67 (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I POSTED ON THE WRONG PART REMOVE PLEASE

clearly i aint sock of any of these you mentioned, if i was, i wouldnt be searching for their sockpuppets and trying to help, i found driverofknowledge by looking into a page's edit history, also, the summaries part is non sensical, i undid what an sockpuppet made on them, then i undo my revert n soviet war crimes cuz the guy that ADDED was ALSO probably a sockpuppet, filter log means my errors, also, what the frick? persistent sockpuppetry? i just reverted his talk page to get a better understanding of that 9 year old's behaviour and see where he will attack (ww2 and footbal/emergency (police, firefighters, etc)), i aint doing exactly like jack did, its just a coincidence that i hate sockpuppeters and vandals? i just have a interest on ww2 pages like him, diference is that i am not a 9 year old that vandals while screaming "MAMA LOOK IM SO FUNNY, HAHA I VANDALIZED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE", i modified the talk page because i wanted to get in contact with the kid to try to understand that imbecile's reasons to vandalize, if he was just plain dumb or if he was a historical revisionist that clearly contradicts himself on war crimes (favouring axis sometimes then favouring soviets), its just plain coincidence, ALL,ill repeat, ALL of your claims make absolute non sense, i checked the edits and man, i was just undoing jack sock edits, also, if i was a sock, i wouldnt be jack, cuz if i was a jack sock, i wouldnt be attacking him, i would be attacking marquinhoswikipediano or the admins/common users, i saw about marquinhoswikipediano and when i saw jack comment, i wanted to remove it because jack is guilty, and a guilty guy commenting on another guilty guy is sus, you cant be certain that im a sock by seeing a filter log or some random reverts, you need more research, i had a reason to undo hes blank, i had a reason to comment on the investigations page (on my opinion, it shouldnt had been archived because it clearly needs to continue as this jack kid continues to sock), also, i accused an ip of being marquinhos sock because he had the same attitudes as jack and marquinhos, also, i think that marquinhos and jack are either enemy trolls or the same person making edit wars for fun, or brother, friends, something like that doing random edit wars to disrupt wikipedia (the last one is improbable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.155.203.67 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, regarding your comment here [[21]]. Do you see similarities to this account [[22]]? Springee (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: I don't know, I'll look into it, although that account is apparently not blocked or banned, so in itself it would just be a link in-between. Thanks for pointer. --Pudeo (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pudeo, Recently I have been trying to improve wiki pages relating to British activists, especially those with links to the Spanish Civil War. Yesterday was the first time I had ever attempted to upload a photograph to a wikipedia page using the non-free use rational, and although I believe I have done everything to ensure it's properly used, I would feel more comfortable if a more experienced editor like you could double-check my work. The below image of Alan Winnington was the first non-free use photo I have uploaded.

Alan Winnington: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Journalist_Alan_Winnington.jpg#filelinks

I have done everything I can to make sure it's used properly and that it follows WP:NFCCP, but I would feel much better to have a more experienced editor have a look. Any help and advice will be greatly appreciated. BulgeUwU (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BulgeUwU: It looks good to me. The resolution is small enough, and the non-free rationale you write seems alright. Sometimes the non-free criteria is quite complex and many editors don't use non-free images at all, with the exception of logos and the like. Just remember that the image can't be embedded to any other page (whether it's a talkpage or any other article). Good job. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In January, you made a false suggestion on my talk page that I have used sockpuppets on controversial pages[23] Your allegations have no basis in fact. I called upon you to strike through your comment on 22 January but didn't get a response. Your allegation is totally false, and you should strike it through or I'll have to consider other remedies. Thanks Noteduck (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Noteduck:. Let me get this straight. Your previous account called Spungo93 (talk · contribs) was checkuser-blocked on January 7. You explained: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 (log entry), meaning you misremembered the date by years, which you confirmed in your reply. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part does not make sense because you had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. Sockpuppeting is quite a serious problem in Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask you about these inconsistencies, because they seemed fishy to me. Or as the admin who blocked your previous account later said he probably should have responded: "ahem, that's crap". But I didn't mean any ill will towards you, and that's that.

But no, I'm not going to strike that. However, you are free to remove almost anything from your talkpage per WP:OWNTALK, including my comment. --Pudeo (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had similar suspicions about this. This IP may be of interest to you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an unblock request formulated, so any advice you have on approaching the WP:CheckUser WP:FUNC or WP:Oversight or another similar body (or an individual within such a body) would be appreciated. My unblock request's been sitting for a while. I know we haven't talked here, but I've seen your edits are solid and was enquiring for help from a sincere user. Cheers Sucker for All (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Social Democratic Party of Finland logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,788 Ω = 4.91
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Memorial Logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pudeo. This message is to notify you that I have removed your page mover user right because you have been inactive for a year or more. This removal is merely procedural in nature and serves to mitigate the potential risks of having inactive accounts retain sensitive permissions. Should you require access again, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover. Thank you for your past contributions to the project and best wishes, --Blablubbs (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pudeo! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SKDL logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pudeo. I've made a section on ANI to appeal a topic ban made against me a long while ago. This topic ban was the result of an arbitration enforcement request you made, so I thought I'd notify you, just in case you see this and want to offer input. No worries if not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Scuderia Ferrari Logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]