User talk:Darker Dreams

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our

Hello, Darker Dreams. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

]

Nomination of

Clan (World of Darkness)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyles (World of Darkness) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kracht Castle Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Junction City (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) 11:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

]

Nomination of

Sign of Koth

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sign of Koth until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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

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]

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

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , 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.

Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Places of power and Energy (esotericism) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:I am not an admin for pete's sake Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've dropped two "admin action" warnings on my talk page in very short succession. I suppose a better comment would be "pot:kettle=black," or just "that's a bit of an odd call given you've got more reverts on Energy (esotericism) than I do, and as many today" but... I assumed you'd get the point. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of

WP:CLUE is becoming more and more apparent. Anyone can give anyone these notifications Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And I can't believe you are creating all this drama to try to force websites like "whitemagicway.com" and "sacredspaces.com" into WP. Mind blowing Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That is what you have been edit warring in two different articles to retain. The problem that needs fixing is your bad choice of refs - this is what both nikkimaria and i have been telling you, and you are not hearing it. I won't respond again here. If you want to discuss something at an article talk page, that would be that. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was pushing back in place of power to retain the wiki references to things like Charmed which I haven't had a chance to dig out the relevant episode or how to format the citation. Actually, I didn't even look at which citations got scooped up in someone else's edit [1], who was hammering away at source quality, and you promptly reverted out of hand. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Place of power shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new discussion at Talk:Earth mysteries#Relevancy of deleted Place of power article about whether we have the best title (and content) for the topic. I figured you might be interested in working on the other article. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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

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]

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darker Dreams. 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

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]

Category:Cthulhu Mythos symbols, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

An article you recently created,

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

I moved all of the bluelinks to entry starts to standardize them, removed the extra blue link without pushing the main link into a redirect, and restored your fix to a mainpage link caught up the previous redirect. My reading of

MOS:DABSEEALSO looks like all three entries would technically fall under the See Also criteria. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks good to me - thanks! Leschnei (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

take the dispute to Talk please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Modern paganism#RfC. Thank you.

The thread at

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I will leave to your conscience whether you want to leave incorrect figures in a table that you edited. OrewaTel (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Sacredness. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Worship, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Devotion and Hero worship.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listing move discussion at Wikiprojects

Hi, do you know if RMs should be listed at wikiprojects, or how to do that, or if a bot handles this? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article,

Witchcraft (diabolic)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page,

speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Witchcraft. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page

.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Witchcraft (traditional) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Witchcraft (traditional) 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/Witchcraft (traditional) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a home for your content

Hi, I think you're going about this all wrong (i.e. lots of new pages), but your intentions and your content are good. I've actually just taken all of the material that you placed at

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Darker Dreams, we also don't need this: Template:Witchcraft sidebar. As I said on that talk page, you've lumped together cunning people and traditional knowledge with witches, who those societies define as those who harm their own communities. It duplicates templates we already have. 00:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You are edit-warring

I realize you are very attached to the Neopagan redefinition of "witch" as someone who heals, and the debunked

right great wrongs

but your edit history shows otherwise:

• Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know this is hard for you to hear, as you have cast me as an enemy, but I know many people who believe as you do. I have a great deal of compassion for this view. BUT, I am asking you to have compassion for the Indigenous, African, Irish and Scottish cultures for whose traditional people "witch" and "witchcraft" is the opposite of the healers and healing metaphysical work. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with these communities, but they/we don't usually trust people who call themselves witches, both because of the "harming their own communities" meaning, but also because American and UK Neopagans are known to culturally appropriate from these very cultures. It's an issue that is very much under the banner of "contemporary witchcraft" and is a huge reason why "contemporary witchcraft" is not synonymous with "neopagan witchcraft". Please, try to understand this as a global, and not just white people, issue. I have raised this multiple times now and you, and a few other editors, are blatantly ignoring it. This, to me, is the major systemic bias issue. Which is why I re-added the systemic bias flag, which you reverted, along with returning a wholly inappropriate link to Indigenous traditional knowledge which is not "witchcraft.[2] Why did you remove it? -

☼ 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I know this is hard for you to hear, as you have cast me as an enemy - including repeatedly accusing me of bad faith in various styles and forums; I have provided, repeatedly, sources that demonstrate that "witch" has been applied to a number of categories of individuals. There is significant complexity to this issue because of several redefinitions of the term "witch," including being applied by colonialists and anthropologists based on specific white, anglo-European, colonial, Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment frameworks that sought to map a broad range of experiences and belief systems into their contemporary European experience - even when that was glaringly inappropriate.

Now, we are not supposed to be discussing these issues outside the mediation process at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Witchcraft. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pinging you here to discuss article content. This is behavioural. You are edit-warring with multiple people, as is evident in your contribs. I'll add diffs, but I think you are aware of what you are doing. -

☼ 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Witchcraft sidebar

☼ 00:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

August 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Witchcraft (traditional). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling edits made in good faith, "vandalism" is a personal attack. You've now done this twice, to two different editors, simply because you disagree with the content. [3][4]

Your edits include the blanking of sources and return of off-topic links, and you are once again edit-warring -

☼ 21:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit-warring again / Tendentious editing

☼ 17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Witchcraft (traditional). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

☼ 19:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

☼ 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing Witchcraft (traditional) for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darker Dreams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I created this page and, following its

WP:AFD nomination User:CorbieVreccan immediately blanked it[6], has repeatedly made false claims regarding sources in edit statements[7][8][9][10], and elsewhere, sought to redefine the article to match definitions already covered at other pages[11], and done this all in coordination with at least one other user[12] who they have defended as "normal editing" even when the stated purpose of edits was to "undermine the whole premise of this article"[13]

.

I agree there is a PoV push, tendacious editing, and attempts at ownership in the entire cluster of Witchcraft articles; but it's the doing of a rogue admin who repeatedly claims consensus when no such thing is present[14][15], believes they (and those they agree with) are above the rules they wish to apply to others, and shows a willingness to weaponize systems against other editors to intimidate them.[16] - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Jpgordon: please clarify which portion of this is considered a personal attack? I do not believe that I said anything substantially different than was said about me in the request resulting in my block.[17] - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darker Dreams. To answer the question: rogue admin, believes they... are above the rules, and willingness to weaponize systems against other editors to intimidate them are all statements that seem to fall into the sphere of "personal attacks".

In general, admins won't consider unblock requests where the blocked user talks about another editor's objectionable conduct. No matter how defensible your own actions might feel, people will expect you to commit to not undertaking similar actions in the future.

I'm here because I saw your request at

WP:RFAR. Wikipedia will never have balanced articles on witchcraft and magic and related topics. It is built on and bound to a completely different way of knowing, one which has historically deliberately marginalised and vilified women's natural knowledge traditions. I know a lot of witches. This just isn't the right website for this. Sorry to have to frame this with such finality, but I thought it might be kinder if you heard it from someone who understands both sides. Folly Mox (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

European witchcraft

Expanded and with a new lead. Cast an eye and make improvements where you see problems. Skyerise (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure exactly where your interests lie, but another new stub is Witchcraft in the Middle East. Skyerise (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft and related topics declined

Hello, the request for arbitration,

☖ 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Template talk:Witchcraft sidebar#How to group neopagan witchcraft and feminist witchcraft

Hope that we can discuss this over a few days, and maybe involve some more editors, such as by seeking a third opinion. Please be mindful of 3RR. Best —Alalch E. 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Witchcraft

Hi, Darker Dreams. Did this recent edit do what you thought it would? It just adds a trailing space to a paragraph (+1), not "Undoing revert; restored sourced material." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

MOS:OVERLINK says not to bother linking "everyday words understood by most readers in context". Nobody reading this article will need to open a tab to find out what a bird is. Belbury (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Signing comments

Hi! Could you please sign your comment [18] in the ‎Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17#Lək̓ʷəŋən RFD discussion for clarity? Let me know if you have any questions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

magico-religious

I noticed you linking the term

magico-religious in many articles. What is your intention there? Are you intending on making an article on the phrase? I just redirected it to Magic and religion but if you have an article you want to make then go ahead with it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm going to point to a discussion already underway at Talk:Bandlet_of_Righteousness#Magico-religious. Short version; I don't know. It's just getting used a lot (that redirect receives links from 85 main space articles), in some places like it's supposed to carry significant meaning, and isn't defined or explained... - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft as shamanism

As I'm sure you know, there are many sources which equate witchcraft in Europe with shamanism throughout the rest of the world. When shamanism is suppressed, it is nearly always called "witchcraft" in the process. Many of the "examples" of the suppression of witchcraft as malevolent originally in the Asia section were about one or another form of shamanism, but the editor who added the material simply cherry-picked the opposition without providing any background about the tradition being suppressed. I've compiled a fairly large list of sources that support this view here. It is neither a minority, fringe, or "neopagan" view. In fact, if it is not now the majority view, it is certainly the second of the prevailing theories. Skyerise (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD Schwarzes Meer

Hi Darker Dreams!

In the discussion at the RfD linked above (now closed as "keep"), you suggested to add link to relevant map(s) in redirect talk page to provide future context. What exactly did you have in mind? As mentioned at the RfD, there are lots of maps that may be relevant. I gave links to about a dozen there (with potential to expand that list to 100+). Do you find it necessary to link them all? Maybe it is best to just point to the RfD, and briefly explain the reasons for keeping? Renerpho (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: I'm not suggesting that you (or anyone) needs to go hunt down all the relevant maps, but if you've already got between a dozen and 100+ that's a swath of identification someone else doesn't have to do if they decide to fix it. Identified maps should be getting collected somewhere or it's never going to get on anyone's radar as a real project or just going to be more annoying when it does. Thinking about it, a category may be better because it'd be easier to find/manage than a list on a talk page - then just link from the redirect talk page to the RfD and category. I don't know if this makes sense. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Intermediate state" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Intermediate state has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Intermediate state until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments on

WP:RMC

The

WP:RMC is maintained by a bot as a list of ongoing discussions. Any inserted comments by editors on there will be removed in the bot's next update(s), as evidently so with your comments being removed. If you have not done so, please open up the individual discussions by clicking on the (Discuss) link in the entries you have comments on and copy your comments over. – robertsky (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

You can't directly edit Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions to post move-related comments there. That page is created on-the-fly by a bot, and changes you make to it will simply be elminated a few minutes later. To comment in an RM discussion, you go to the talk page of the page being proposed for move/rename.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RMC page. I will address relocating those comments if I have time. - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Topic banned by the community

Per this ANI discussion, you have been indefinitely topic banned from the subjects of witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly construed. Please consult

WP:ARCA. I recommend you to not apply in less than six months from now, but that is merely a personal recommendation because I think it would improve your chances of a successful appeal; it's not a formal restriction. If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. Bishonen | tålk 22:29, 20 October 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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"Magico-medical" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Magico-medical has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Magico-medical until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Magico-healing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Magico-healing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Magico-healing until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]