User talk:Dnm

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Danieldnm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Soman (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_terrorist_organisations

I've noticed that you edit pages removing the word terrorist for actors described by that name by at least one source (US or EU) and linking, when the description cames from the refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.252 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment I do not remember the "incident" you may refer to. It may have been that I misunderstood the context or that I deemed it to be contentious labeling. If the label came from the source, it should be clear by reading the text so that misunderstandings can be avoided in the future. Sincerely, Dnm (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welfare chauvinism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Populist and Populists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Hello, I'm Saedon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Antikythera mechanism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sædontalk 01:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on your talk page. Regards, Dnm (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antikythera_mechanism

I am leaving you this note as you have previously edited Antikythera mechanism. I started a discussion regarding the Antikythera mechanism b1 gear tooth count at Talk:Antikythera_mechanism Jim1138 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted the discussion. Thanks for your post, however i do not think the basis of your revert is reasonable. I have restored the text accordning to what is supported by the sources. Regards, Dnm (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden Democrats

Let's ignore the accuracy of the paragraph for a second. Why would you even consider this a reliable source? The article is written by a history/political science student and it is published in a fashion magazine. And not only that, but the website of the magazine has an Alexa rank of 25,329,488, which makes it quite obvious that this magazine is hardly read by anyone and hardly used by other sources. Surely better sources criticizing SD's economical claims can be found? Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be on the talk page of the article.
Ofc, there are better sources, I give you that. Instead of just removing the info, I would recommend that you put a tag for a new source to the paragraf. Regards, Dnm (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works though. Any "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". I'll therefore remove the paragraph. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of how Wikipedia works, and I also know that ppl for different reasons tend to POV and others succumb reason when it comes to SD and other far-right organisations. I do react strongly, when it comes to removing correct information on a technicality. However, I wont edit war you on this. Still I feel the need to underline that your action is unconstructive. Dnm (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of political viewpoint, it is clear that many articles about that party are improperly sourced, or biased, especially from a mainstream Swedish left-liberal ideological perspective. Please write neutrally. For example, the article Welfare chauvinism uses an 8-year-old source referring to SD as being welfare chauvinists. That source should be better replaced with a more actual source, or treated as an historical source. 7695v08y (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV has been noted, 7695v08y, and one more source has been added. Dnm (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Party of the Swedes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden Democrats

Hello, may I ask why you are wanting the old source (8 years old) to represent The Sweden Democrats political view?

SvD is one of the larger newspapers in Sweden, it is renown that The Sweden Democrats is not a right-wing political party. It is incorrect to represent them as one on the English page, if you do not stop this war just so you know, Wikipedia is a unbiased source of information, thus, authors as yourself who are biased, are not welcome here.

Kind regards,

I like the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by I like the truth (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CANVAS, Srda Popovic

Hello, saw your name on the CANVAS talk page, and I made some additions in the 'Controversy' section that you may be interested in. I also invite you to review and monitor the related Srda Popovic (activist) page, where I've made similar additions. GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5: I think the additions you have made has greatly improved the the articles. I hope the improvements will stand. Dnm (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GPRamirez5: However, it seems like one user do not like the content of the information you added. Do you have sources that can confirm the information?As you can se the user do not think the given sources are enough. Dnm (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks different to me. I can't see where in the source that particular information is. Also they have made a report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive209#Srdja Popovic. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CambridgeBayWeather: From what i understand, the information is correct. However, the sources may not be the best. Thats why i have asked GPRamirez5 to look into it. Dnm (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Strange the ping didn't work. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxing complete

@Dnm: Okay, I think I'm done with that article I was sandboxing for now. I didn't end up including the VDARE Paul Gottfried reference, as I suspect I'd have to create a new section called "Conservatives Critics" (his views on the subject aren't straight forward) and also I feel he may be paying close attention to these wikipedia articles [1], so I decided it would be easier to leave him out of things for now. Perhaps it would be a good early addition though. Thanks again for your words of encouragement! --Jobrot (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RobinHammon reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: ). Thank you. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave: Ah, thanks for the information. But it seems that i am to late to notice this. Have a nice day! Dnm (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Information icon Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Queen (band), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: Tbh, that is a really bad summary. "Rock" was not the only thing they did, not even as a "summary". But ok, I will not edit the article ever again. For the future, it is good to know that the owning structure of articles. Have a nice evening! Dnm (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Left Party (Sweden).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Left Party (Sweden).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Left Party (Sweden).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Left Party (Sweden).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re: WP:Edit warring

Please stop reverting without using the talk page of the article Prince Bernadotte. You are also aware that another user from Swedsh Wikipeia who agrees with you has reverted there several times, and, more seriously, that the discussion has not yet had input from any neutral users at all. As an experienced user you should know better than that. I am now reitstating the material again which was removed. If you continue to revert without discussing, and if you do not stick to the subject of the article without personal animosity involved where other peoeple by name are subjected to your accusations, I will have no other option than to to report you on both counts. Personalized conflicts on Swedish Wikipedia should not spill over to other projects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: I have nothing personally against you and this is not about you. It is about the source you are using to add your personal views on royals. I have removed that source one time because it is unreliable and uncreditable, and it is clear that the source where created to support your efforts on Wikipedia (established through discussions on SwWP). In total, you have reverted me and others four (4) times.
Feel free to report me. Your source is not credible or reliable, and no amount of threats of possible reports will make me think different about that. Dnm (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personalized conflicts on Swedish Wikipedia should not spill over to other projects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal conflict just because you claim it is. It is about the source you are using to push your views into articles (as established on Swedish Wikipedia), which, among other similar reasons, resulted in you being permanently blocked from edit the SwWP project. Dnm (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint of edit warring at Prince Bernadotte

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Four (so far) users from Swedish Wikipedia reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thanks for the information. I see that the issue has been resolved.
Thanks for pointing out about the source usage. It was one of the reasons for the indefinite block of SergeWoodzing on the Swedish Wikipedia project (creating sources offwiki to force personal views into the articles onwiki). Over a period of years i have noticed the same problems here on EnWP, but with a major the difference in that when SW are unable to impose his will on SwWP he goes over to EnWP project doing the same thing and succeeds, and then yet again comes back to SwWP to point out that it is indeed saying NN in the EnWP, thus forcing the view into Wikipedia (this is just one example of the problems).
Here at EnWP many often, naturally, lack the necessary knowledge for the subjects SW is editing why errors to a greater extent get to be left uncorrected or not refuted. To illustrate this, I want to show that SW has insight on precisely this relationship: "And I think you'll find that the vast majority of users here don't give a hoot about what's been going on at Swedish Wikipedia." Thus, with that insight the projects are played off against each other.
Btw, here are the reason in English for the blocking of SergeWoodzing from the SwWP project. Dnm (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: I accidentally post the post without having it signed, so I do not know if you received my ping. Here is a second ping to be sure (will be removed later on). Dnm (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expo

Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think its counterproductive that you insist on Expo as a source and claim others can not remove "well sourced material", this will only lead to a long edit war. Expo is considered partisan by many and the proper procedure is to discuss it first on the talk page. Generally English or Danish sources would be preferable for a Danish party.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Batmacumba: With all due respect, what you think is appropriate sources or not is not particularly interesting in this context (I am not interested in a political discussion or political evaluation of sources). But I can say this much: The soruces I have been using is legitimate and mainstream, not controversial in any way, except for the extreme right-wing organizations that dislike Expo (hell, they do dislike everything to the left of their own media channels, everything is seen as having a bias and so on). Expo is highly regarded and seen as expert when it comes to knowledge of right-wing extremism. Expo are used by universities and colleges, the established media, and others, as a given source of, in particularly, Swedish and Nordic right-wing extremism.
And the next thing in this matter: I answered you on the talk page of the article (keep the discussion there!), asking you for third party sources supporting your point. Instead of providing them you went off to DaWP complain about the edits made here. Ofc this will lead to a edit war when you are not providing the topic with either neutral sources nor arguments of why the partys self definition should be taken for granted or truth. Dnm (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get it. Why "generally english and danish"? Danish I understand, but why is english more important than Swedish? Sweden is a country closer to denmark, and therefor more sources about danish topics.
Expo is partisan? Expos aim is to do research about right wing extremism. Thats why people that are fond of those topics try to disregard expo as a source. But, if you look att the last two swedish governments they have and are using expo as experts about right wing extremism, neonazism and antisemitism. If you look at my two sources you can see it. Use google translate if you do not understand. Regeringen.se is the swedish government. from a governmental department, expo and skma in expert group, and expo as source for the government, regeringen. Do you mean that the former right wing government, and the present social democrat government (two different blocks) are using partisan sources? Adville (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dnm. 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]

Stop the slander

You have no reason to assume that I am a member of any far right organization, you know full well why I do not consider the Danes party as a neo-Nazi party (based on interview with a researcher and my general knowledge of Danish nationalism), and that my main objection is that I do not like this term being trivialized. if you look at my edits on wikipedia they deal with a wide range of topics, but are centered on international elections, especially outside of Europe, and are not centered on far right/racialist topics. Since you have no evidence I ask you to stop the slander, or I will report you.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ContraVentum (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above user was blocked himself, according to notice board. Adville (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Both yourself and Nergaal should be made aware of the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions. Thanks. El_C 04:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tobias Hübinette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish. 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) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of Jamtland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish. 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) 10:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Republic of Jamtland

Hi Dnm. Song lyrics are copyright, and we can't include them here. Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: No, it is not copyrighted, so it can be included. And also, it is ok to quote. Dnm (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: The song (the lyrics) was published in 1931 and written by Wilhelm Peterson-Berger who died in 1942. Since 2013, the song has no copyright protection under Swedish, European and international law according to STIM. The music is from 17th/18th century. So I hope you will reverse your edit. Regards, Dnm (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. The lyrics are out of copyright in their country of origin, so it's okay to include them after all. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden Democrats

You have politely been asked twice to visit the talk page to discuss your changes to the Sweden Democrats. You are about to engage in an edit war. Please engage in the discussion there before putting undiscussed changes to the POV of the article. Thank you Alexandre8 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandre8: And I have. What makes you think you have the authority to make changes to the article but nobody else? Dnm (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and Adville made stylistic changes, in shortening the introduction, we did not change the already pre-existing neutrality of the article. You have inserted new material see guidelines. I can see from your history on the page you have already made some contentious changes. Going forward please discuss before editing as we have done. THank you. Alexandre8 (talk)
@Alexandre8: "I can see from your history...", now who is talking in ad hominem? The facts are like this: You are reverting clarifications and calling that NPOV. How dishonest is not that? By doing so you are indirectly calling me POV-pusher and later you are saying that I am pushing agendas. Both statements are a false and you are making accusations without ground. To say who or with what authority somebody classifies something as something is the obvious thing to do. We are writing for the reader, and for the reader to have a better understanding of the facts presented is everything and our main goal or "duty". But I will not bother you any further. Continue to do what you do and I will return to SwWP continue to the work with neutralizing articles with POV templates. Dnm (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduction at article Swedish Wikipedia

I understand,Adville has called for some kind of aid. But we have as of NOW a talk-page discussion. You ought to begin there. Perhaps you didn't know. But FOR NOW please use the talk-page, until the matters is solved. The sources was NPOV alright, but not WP:SECONDARY. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I am the only one watching this page? You have gone too far... Adville (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the page om my watchlist, Boeing720. I have grown somewhat tired of your destructive behaviour in that article. You have a real issue with your POV when it comes to that article. Dnm (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
POV no. But the article is not NPOV. That is the issue. Boeing720 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dnm. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dnm. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dnm. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality notice on CANVAS article

Hi – in 2014 you added a neutrality notice on the article about the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies. I removed it as your concerns seem to have been addressed in detail in the meantime. If you disagree, I'd welcome your input on the talk page. Thanks for caring about neutrality on Wikipedia. Joriki (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joriki: It has been years, I can imagine, so I have nothing to disagree about. However, I really appreciate your msg about it.! :) Regards, Dnm (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from Epadunk to another page. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. For example: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk pages of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, please add attribution retrospectively for that also, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Dnm"