User talk:OgamD218

Hi OgamD218! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

Sorry for the confusion, I just finished my post in the talk page now.OgamD218 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please sign your posts on talk pages
  with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is
  .
• We do not publish original thought nor original research
  . We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include
  : articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view
  . Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required
  .
• Always cite a source for any new information
  . When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• we're not here to promote any ideology
  .
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
  .
• Reliable sources typically include
  : articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view
  . Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited
  . If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• the center of the universe
  .

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is

If

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ronald Reagan, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: I've been busy otherwise I would have addressed this sooner. I trust this placed here in good faith however I am honestly not sure why you had this reaction. The first edit, re Stahl's input was not unsourced by any interpretation, the source was there and as her own book, a primary source for her state of mind, adding that she claimed she came close to making that report was not disruptive but a responsible or if anything a rather mild edit. Further such a report is not assumed to have been run without further verification of the situation by CBS News in 1986. My other edit was a sentence better clearly conveyed content that was fully sourced/already there. To avoid duplicate source listing in a single citation, I did not include all of these as they were present in work from other editors starting in the sentence that immediately followed. The call of the article was switching from lay opinions to medical ones and on a medical issue. I do not believe you had any mal intent here and I remain open to the fact I may be incorrect in one or more ways here. Still, I have re-added both these edits. With re to the latter I re-wrote and added content and included not only additional sources but several others already present and placed them all with the opening sentence. OgamD218 (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose I'm always open to constructive input, but if you're not going to respond, please revert your message from my talk page.OgamD218 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding sooner. For some reason I never got your first ping. I looked at my edit and must admit I don't know why I reverted you. I have to assume I misread, or perhaps thought I was reverting another edit. I have stricken my warning. Please accept my apologies. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose No worries OgamD218 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, could you self-revert this edit? There were two instances of describing that Donald Trump had been banned from social media platforms, and I removed one of them, which was in a note. The note is redundant as it is described in the prose of the paragraph. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure OgamD218 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Please don't take it personally if I revert any of your content, I think we both want to improve the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Woodrow Wilson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Woodrow Wilson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The great Jay -- The great Jay (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I appreciate your edits to the Andrew Jackson article. I looked over them all. Some of them were helpful. Just please remember that because all content on Wikipedia must be sourced, you must ensure before adding any content that it is included in the sources already in the article. If it is not, you must add a new source. Also, please note, especially for articles such as the one about Jackson that are about major topics and are rather long, that not all information relevant to the topic being discussed is relevant enough to the subject of the article to merit inclusion. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have misunderstood my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodrow_Wilson&diff=prev&oldid=1062157468 for which I said, "UPS is not a government department". You responded in your edit summary, "until 1971 it was", which means that you were thinking of the postal reorganization of 1971 but missed the fact that "UPS" is not the correct initials of the former government department (United States Post Office Department) nor the current independent agency (United States Postal Service). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Yes, I made a point of linking of the contemporary department so as to help clarify. I agree with your decision however that it just makes more sense to link AND spell it out-(I changed it slightly to:) "Postal Service."OgamD218 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that, too. We have separate articles about the United States Post Office Department (until 1971) and the United States Postal Service (since 1971). While I don't want to cavil about casual usages, if we are referring to the government department or independent agency in a short form, "Post Office" should be used for pre-1971 events and "Postal Service" for post-1971 events. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Interesting point. I'm inclined to view the difference, at least in this specific context (the Wilson Administration's segregation policy) as semantics-right or wrong I mean no offense, I hate how hard it is to avoid being misunderstood through internet posts. The link is to the correct incarnation of the post office/department. I think we may also be interpreting the circumstances differently though. My lay understanding is the USPS is a govt corp but not an independent corp (the difference once again arguably being semantics). The particulars of the organization charged with delivery of the US mail by the federal govt (getting hard to find a neutral title lol) has always changed with the times (prior to the 1870s it was not "the Post Office Department") while remaining the same institution at its core more or less-becoming/seizing to be a Cabinet level dept probably had not affect on the life of the average mailperson. Is "post office" the a recognized or prefered title of the 1870-1971 institution? OgamD218 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not that concerned with how this entity was organized in any of these eras, but we can agree that it did change its organizational status and name in 1971. So I understand your question to be, is "the Post Office" a good way to refer to the United States Post Office Department that existed from 1870 to 1971? I think so. I went looking for examples from that era of articles that refer to the "Post Office Department" and in the same article call it the "Post Office", and I found several good examples. See Life, UPI, Popular Photography, Kiplinger's Personal Finance, American Bar Association Journal, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: I don't think a serious risk of confusion exists and it is clear you've done your due diligence tracking this issue so I would not object if you went ahead with the edit. OgamD218 (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Thank you, thank you for your comment on Bible. Now if you would be so kind as to offer an opinion on the solution suggested at [1] I would be even more grateful. I would promise to be your friend forever - just for responding - but that might not be an incentive... but I would appreciate it!

Thank you's also delivered with love. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: anytime lol. OgamD218 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

Did those edits really changed much? It was mostly copy editing and of wikilinks, e.g. avoid

I notice you have twice reverted my edits to this page. I presume you didn't read the explanation of the edit so I'm contacting you directly. The sentence in question appears twice in the article, word-for-word and with the same citation. There is no justification for this. Of the two instances, I retained the one that seemed in a more natural place. I hope that makes sense. Patrick Neylan (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay and sorry for the reversion. On more close consideration I find that I agree with your edit in this regards. I would self-revert but I see another editor already restored your edit. Thank you for being diplomatic along the way. OgamD218 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

@CorbieVreccan:, thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I apologize for my mistake. While my edits in question were for a number of different reasons, I opted to simply explain them with "ce" as a means of assuming good faith and being non-confrontational/needlessly offensive to whoever made them in the first place. I do apologize of the editor behind the content I revise was you however I presume that unlikely given your experience on wiki. First and foremost, most of the content I deleted I did so because it was unambiguously false, and gave the impression of having been generated by an new editor who lacked competency in the field. Examples of such include:

1. Describing Columbus as "hired" by the Spanish monarchs, who "dispatched" him in 1492. Columbus was an Genoese subject and free sailor who was shopping the royal courts of Europe pitching his theory of reaching the Asia, eager to not be beaten to it he intended to leave immediately upon finding a sponsor for his expedition. Anxious of losing our if he succeeded, the Spanish monarchs famously contracted with Columbus to be his patrons/sponsor and split the profits of his expedition. Though the situation of course evolved, their intent was profitable trade, the spread christianity via doctrine of discovery had nothing at all to do with origins of the Columbus' journey.

2. Columbus "discovered" a few islands in the Caribbean as early as 1493, and Ferdinand and Isabella immediately asked the pope to "ratify" the discovery, this is plain ignorance. Columbus did not reach "a few" islands "as early as 1493", though not monumental in detail, for an encyclopedia to contain such an error-especially this specific page, is embarrassing. Further, though papal bulls did give special rights to the Spanish, it is well known that it was initially believed that Columbus landed in Asia; accordingly nothing in 1493 actually touched on the doctrine of discovery pertaining to indigenous peoples.

The tying in of this topic with what are very much oversimplified descriptions of a handful of papal edicts spread out over a millennium violates NPOV/OR and at certain points utilizes editorializations based on pure fiction.

3. The beginnings of European colonialism in the "New World" effectively formalized the Doctrine of Discovery into international law, which at that time meant law that was agreed upon by Spain, Portugal, and the Catholic Church. Whether this was "presumed in good faith" or simply made up by the editor idk but it is ahistorical. The fact they were revised and in large part revoked shortly thereafter aside-Papal Bulls are not Dogma, with regards to the worldwide church these were persuasive not controlling. As a matter of historical fact, it is a settled fact they were completely rejected as international law-even by other Catholic kingdoms (notably France) and protestant states making their own claims based on independent Charters.^[1]

4. Indigenous peoples were not consulted or included in these arrangements, I removed this bc it is a non-encyclopedic and unnecessary editorialization. The entire topic of the passage is that Indigenous peoples WERE being included but also not consulted.

5. The other content, that contained above 1-4 is much more serious NPOV and gets into more contentious subjects while at the same time making similar though potentially less innocent errors. The throw away unexplained or contextualized reference to 5th Century theology is hard to discern is not historical truth. The

holy war against those whom the church saw as infidels. Pope Innocent IV

's writings from 1240 were particularly influential..... This not at all true, Church teaching on the crusades at their initiation in 1096 was inspired as a means to aid the Byzantine Empire (which wasn't even Catholic) and Christians in the east perceived as being under attack by Muslim conquerors. The term "infidel" was not even in wide use at the time mentioned displaying either ignorance or bias and the underlying motivations for the Crusades had nothing to do with this belief in a christian right to subjugate non-christians on the word of the church. The reference to Innocent IV is extremely ahistorical as his cited edicts represented a major break from those of past Popes and cannot be tied in with them-further they were also rejected by most European states just not Spain and Portugal (at least nominally).

I hope this clears up your very valid issue with my edits on this topic/being explained via "ce". I apologize again for this oversight but hope you at least understand where I was coming from-my hope was to avoid confrontation over (what I still assume to be good faith) mistakes on such topics as religious wars/teachings and the subjugation of Indigenous peoples. OgamD218 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put this on article talk. I'm going to look over your more recent edits. While some parts of what you did are acceptable, two of us have reverted you and it gives the impression you are involved in an edit war. I haven't decided yet if your recent reverts should stand. Discuss at article talk. -

☼ 17:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan: I did not add commentary anywhere. I removed content that was not only uncited (and out of place) but objectively false information. My prior edits you thought lacked sufficient summary/explanation-which was a fair observation in my opinion. However, after I provided a detailed explanation ^ above, restored those edits and made further improvements to the same page, this time always giving clear specific explanations in the edit summary, another editor reverted them all with the mere explanation “not improvement”-I did not see any objection raised by you to this editor however despite the fact their edit summary would not logically meet the same standards you expected of me. However this certainly did not go unnoticed by you.......your interpretation of the other editor's reversion was to insinuate that I was somehow editor warring………… I did not add commentary, I was noting that it is a matter of historical and scientific fact that the uncited content you seem to be guarding is false. OgamD218 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this diff to the warning above:where you added commentary in the citation needed tags, breaking the format, and introducing

☼ 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan With regards to this issue, please know that I did not mean any offense. It was not at all my intention to be "denigrating" in my edit summary. I apologize if that is how it was taken however. With reference to Carlin, all comedians tend to do social commentary and from a scholarly POV his inclusion may lend less not more legitimacy when weighing inclusion in an encyclopedia article. That being said, this seems to be an area where you're much more experienced and on point that myself and accordingly I will defer to you. On second reflection I see your point regarding the relevance of this section/topic and I will try to take greater caution in the future. Once again, I did not mean anything by my edit summary.

As an aside, Again you blanked sourced text with an inaccurate, and this time degrading edit summary- In order to avoid semantics I won't address accuracy but this is genuinely the only instance where you have addressed the blanking of sourced content by me?

OgamD218 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

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. Wes sideman (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Neo-Confederates

Hi, OgamD218. I took a look at the edit warring at

WP:DRN

. I've told Wes, who is edit warring about the "See also"'s in equal measure, the same thing (on my own page).

Also, please stop restoring this material against the opinion of several experienced users. That's getting disruptive, and you may be blocked from the page if you don't desist. Take it to talk. Bishonen | tålk 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of Jewish states and dynasties § Did attempts to change POV in this list go too far & make it more biased?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Jewish states and dynasties § Did attempts to change POV in this list go too far & make it more biased?. Peaceray (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

May 2023

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.
You've now also removed sourced material from the article. You've been warned about this before by Bishonen in February and March. Enough is enough. Wes sideman (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE OGAM ALONE AND STAY OFF HIS TALK YOU BULLY. Enough is enough.

not a rant or obsession - it's a good feeling. Thank you for that.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/198252759@N04/52870394041/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ 172.56.161.2 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neo-Confederates. 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 talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Wes sideman (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE OGAM ALONE AND STAY OFF HIS TALK YOU BULLY.

not a rant or obsession - it's a good feeling. Thank you for that.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/198252759@N04/52870394041/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.54.71.58 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

CS1 error on HIV/AIDS in the United States

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page HIV/AIDS in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 05:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

American Journal?

I guess you meant American Review here instead of "American Journal". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much obliged @Gitz6666 OgamD218 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Neo-Confederates

On the talk page, I see myself, Jack4576, and Grayfell that support the inclusion of the text. Grayfell in particular points out that "opposition to this, as presented above, is neither policy-based nor impartial", which I agree with. Your continued removal of the sourced paragraph is a slow-roll edit war, and the next one will be reported as such to an admin. Wes sideman (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you've seen the talk page section meaning you should also be well aware you never gained consensus. You've done this from the beginning, restoring NPOV content and making up that you had consensus even when nobody agreed with you and when reverted leveling baseless threats to try to get your way. Through your canvassing efforts you finally got a 2 editors to take your side-still not more than the number of editors who weighed in not supporting you and certainly not consensus. OgamD218 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Alpha Epsilon

Certainly most of the "citation needed" are valid, however a request, could you put them after the punctuation, just as the citations that will fix them would be.Naraht (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht I've seen and done it both ways. I am honestly unaware if any wiki policy applies but I certainly have no objection to your suggestion and will try to follow through accordingly going forward. OgamD218 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Naraht (talk) 04:44, 26 September 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 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:OgamD218 reported by User:Wes sideman (Result: ). Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Neo-Confederates 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) 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 24 November 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

RfC

Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" request for comment-- your comment would be greatly appreciated Merzostin (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]