Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to .
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and people associated with the same, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

EvergreenFir (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Apocalypticism, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Not only you single-handedly decided to delete this section in its entirety without saying a word on the Talk page, but also forgot to read the cited quote where it is explicitly mentioned that far-right accelerationists intend to "accelerate" the future end of the world. Check out the cited sources next time. GenoV84 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the source text, in particular: "[...] the local police proved incapable or unwilling to protect workers willing to move freight trains, the governor mobilized the local militia, who often sympathized with the strikers." & "the militia, sympathetic to the strikers, withdrew". You are correct that the information concerning the Feds getting the trains going again is not *explicitly* stated in the source. That info pre-existed my edit and had been sourced to the History website,^[1], which though not an RS, is corroborated by the Oxford source ("the strike moved on"). If you want to be helpful on that page, I would suggest working on the unsourced parts. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you sometimes will make 0 or 1 byte edits that comment on the article without changing the text. This seems a little unusual when a thread on article talk would work better by allowing threaded response. Not implying funny business. Sincerely curious as to why. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am told detailed edit summaries are desirable. Dieknon (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but usually those are to explain edits, not just summaries absent an edit. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to the right person? Could you point out an example of the kind of edit you are referring to? Dieknon (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I meant this diff - like I said though, no big deal. Just didn't get what was going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, this may be an issue with the mobile diff renderer. The edit moved a paragraph from the subsection "Marxist" to the subsection "Feminist". You should be able to see it if you switch to desktop view. Dieknon (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Burrobert (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think your version reflected what the file says, nor does the one you changed, I can’t deal with this on mi IP but will look at it tomorrow on my PC. I’m pretty ill and in pain from cancer but will find time. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:

Per the image file's description, the source is Our World In Data. Per Our World in Data, the source is Eisensee and Strömberg (2007). The data there is contained in table IX, on page 37 of the PDF file. The values represent, by the terminology of the report, the Equal coverage casualties ratio. Helpfully, the legend below the table supplies an interpretation:

To have the same estimated probability of being covered by the television network news, a disaster in the Pacific must have 91 times as many casualties as one in Europe, all else equal (disaster type, year, month, and number affected)

I'm quite certain that "casualty" here means "death". The values presented in the table are therefore to be interpreted as ratios, of the required number of deaths necessary for a disaster to receive the same amount of coverage, relative to a similar disaster occurring in Europe. Hence why the value for Europe is 1. It is the reference point.

The title used by Our World is Data is misleading. The numbers presented do not count deaths. Arguably, the file itself should be fixed (and moved) so as to not carry forward this misleading presentation. Dieknon (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or just removed. It’s really too old to use. Good research there, thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking we could use the source better. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comment on the article talk page? I think we can use the source in better ways. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:

Your comment lacks anything actionable, so I can't comment. Looking at your edit history, it seems your writing style has severely deteriorated in the past few hours. I am aware that you are currently dying of cancer, so the explanation probably lies there. Maybe you're on pain medication? Anyway, there's no need to push yourself. Dieknon (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The real problem is I’m lying on a couch most of the time and I’m crap with an iPad. Need to use my pc more. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking those were going to be your last words. Dieknon (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you mean. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and stop making unsupported allegations of misbehaviour like you did here. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]