Respect your decision and whatever the reasons for it, but hoping you reconsider and change your mind soon. We need you around here man. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me by e-mail if necessary. Viewfinder (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the sad result of the behaviour of minor contributors or the rules of Wikipedia then there's something seriously wrong with both of them. I'm very sorry to see you go.

Qwrk (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My withdrawal was the immediate consequence of a general purge of my internet media accounts following the excessive use of Facebook to pull strings in my life. But I have decided not to restore my Wikipedia account. My site, which includes my e-mail address, is still available. The behaviour of the User:Farhoudk, who made claims that are just plain wrong, was certainly not helpful. But the biased and nasty response of administrator User:JamesBWatson and his cohorts, who blocked me not my opponent despite him not me breaking 3RR, upset me considerably more. But, as an independent topographic researcher, the rules too are a problem, particularly the WP:OR rule. Even if I can put together a referenced argument in support of my claims, my edits can still be challenged as OR. My site has been used as a reference by other editors so it is evidently regarded by Wikipedians as adequately reliable. It is therefore better for me to post my research to my own site, then let others judge it before deciding whether or not to post it to Wikipedia. I will be updating my inflated elevations page very soon, especially the section on Mount Damavand. I hope it will be considered more reliable than unreferenced or outdated claims in outdated articles by employees of the likes of NASA and USGS. In recent times I have tended towards using Wikipedia, rather than my own site, as a platform for my own research, bending the OR rules too far in the process. Viewfinder (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see your retirement. You might go to vacation :) instead to get rid of these temporary headaches for a while. Your statements on WP:OR rule is a reality. New official measurements are available for Mount Damavand elevation using gravimeter as well, but still is not reliable for me to mention on wiki, as Iranian authorities have not published it officially yet!! Also when it comes to compare elevation of Damavand with other summits in for example Eastern Europe to have extra judgments, all measurements must be accomplished by same internationally acceptable procedures and instruments. I am sure this kind of global measurements will be done in near future and not only the problem of having inaccurate elevation of Mount Damavand will be resolved but also we will see better accuracy for elevation of summits mentioned in List of Iranian four-thousanders as well. Until then, it is better to leave the elevation of Mount Damavand as disputed. Farhoudk (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Iranian authorities have and are about to publish new information then we can wait for it. Let's hope they do. Viewfinder (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link from 1998 is a low value link because the information is entirely trivial. That this is the best that you can do does add weight to the inevitable conclusion that this BLP of a minor isn't worth the bytes its written in.

Describing him as a mathematician and astrophysicist is also misleading. He is at best, a student whose had a puff biography written of him by his mother. Please do not add misleading information. And please do not lecture me on this sortof thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the description should have been amended per the article. Viewfinder (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting lonely here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute appears to be over Jorge Egocheaga, with Qwrk insisting that he be included in the verified list, citing Eberhard Jurgalski's 8000ers.com. I have just downloaded the cited page and I cannot find him listed. EJ is well known to me, I could contact him directly. Viewfinder (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Qwrk is apparently waiting for an update. Any help would be appreciated I'm sure.

I will contact EJ. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile it appears that Qwrk has already heard from EJ, who has not updated his site. Whatever the situation, until we have a reliable source in support of the claim that JE's ascent has been accepted, he has to remain in the disputed section. Viewfinder (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look at [1]? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eberhard just called me to inform me that a user, who goes by the same name as User;Globetrotter1918, has been active on Polish wikipedia, and who is currently blocked "with an expiry time forever (account creation disabled, can not edit own talk page) (unauthorized use of puppets)"

Check;

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/Globetrotter1918 [translation here; https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecjalna%3AWk%25C5%2582ad%2FGlobetrotter1918&edit-text= ]

When it comes to logical fallacies ["8000ers.com is NOT the authorative source for this!" while at the same time using link to sources on 8000ers.com to be used as a reference], I stand by my view that, even when the basis of wikipedia is a good one, in essence there is something fundamentally wrong with this platform when a contributor with 3,000 edits is given the same weight as a newby with 6 edits to his name.

I thought this is something you all should know.

Qwrk (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will e-mail EJ. Thank you for the Finisterre edit. I think we should accept the 4150m GPS reading and delete the references to 4125 and 4175. I have asked PB to upload more information about the name. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also edited one (Keokradong) and added another (Mowdok Mual) prominence in Bangladesh. I hope these will not be disputed. Peakbagger is not a reliable source of summit coordinates or prominence data other than where its author has cited other sources. Viewfinder (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I have amended my retirement to semi-retired, that appears to be the way it is working out. I am still available to help where I can. Viewfinder (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope Qwrk is ok.

Regarding Finisterre: I noticed earlier in the Bjørstad source it says "Primary factor 3700 m" under the elevation. Is this a prominence? If so I would much rather use a value that is directly sourced rather than one we calculated on a talk page. The combined error margin of the two measurements probably exceeds 7 m anyway. As I am about to change the standing of five peaks at List of peaks by prominence with this, I would like to be armed with a least something.

Also would you mind if I moved or copied our Finisterre posts from here to the article talk page? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these should be moved to article talk page. Primary factor is another name for prominence. I stand by the 441m col and would rather it was not changed, at least until I have asked about the source of 3700 on the Boising page. Viewfinder (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this accusation of bad faith, I have already engaged you on the whole alleged "cabal" issue, but you erased the discussion. Assuming you had a right to bring this up in the past, as I see it you lost that right in deleting further discussion of the issue. The next reference you make to an unseen "cabal" I expect to be at WP:ANI. I am even willing to kick off the discussion there if you wish, but as I have no desire to be prejudicial in the matter I heartily suggest that you take the first step. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you quote another editor: Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-knit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. Viewfinder (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have also serially accused me of incompetence, ignorance and tendentious editing. Still, in the interests of cooling things down, I have deleted the word "cabal" from Talk:Jacob_Barnett. Viewfinder (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

other naming conventions[edit]

Please say "Sławomir" rather than "Slawek"; the latter is an artifact of technology (not all physical keyboards and virtual keyboards and software systems support the correct glyphs). A minor point, perhaps, but may help improve the level of discourse slightly. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viewfinder! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

Hey, just a little more detail into my revert of your revert.

Common member's of the Privy Council are permitted the use of 'The Right Honourable' but not the use of the post-nominal 'PC'. Peer's of the Privy Council, having already the use of 'The Right Honourable' or higher use the pre-fix use the post-nominal 'PC'. Baron & Broness, Earl & Countess, Viscount & Vicountess, Use of PC, Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion at Talk:John Prescott. Viewfinder (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of elevation extremes by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cat Island. 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) 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest IP edit, although from a different IP address, is no doubt from the same person. I have blocked both IP addresses for 48 hours, and left messages on their talk pages asking them to discuss the issue. It is possible that may get through to the editor, but it is very likely that it won't, for several reasons. Apart from anything else, editors who keep changing to different IP addresses are quite likely to never actually see talk page messages, because by the time the message comes they have moved on to another IP address. There are other things which could be tried, but for the moment let's see if this block makes a difference. As you know, you could be seen as edit-warring, but as far as I am concerned, the important differences are that you have tired to start a discussion, and you have tried to offer a compromise, so I don't see that blocking you under present circumstances would be constructive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Hopefully your block of both the original IP and its sockpuppet will put an end to this matter. When confronted with this kind of editing, it is very difficult to respond without fighting back, especially if, as in this case, no other registered editors appear to be watching at the time. I had a editor whom I could rely on to support me in these situations, Racerx11, but he disappeared suddenly on May 19. Even when these adversaries do take their cases to talk pages, they continue their article edit warring, offer no compromise, and make claims that are not only unsourced but also blatantly false. Viewfinder (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gabon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the coastal plains (ranging between 20 to 300 km from the ocean's shore), the mountains (the Cristal Mountains to the northeast of Libreville, the Chaillu Massif in the centre, and the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please either unblock, or change "Denali". This is to ensure that Mount McKinley remains undisturbed. Nerdiate (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it has been agreed that the name Denali has now been made official, and Mount McKinley redirects to it. Viewfinder (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sebastian de Ferranti plaque.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail from author sent. Viewfinder (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viewfinder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to have to explain why you think Scafell Pike's parent peak is Snowden. I appreciate that there might be some topographical standard for this sort of thing - but the term defies common sense and will certainly be felt as misleading/incorrect by many.

I have in mind the phrase "Using the encirclement definition, the parent of almost any small hill in a low-lying coastal area would be Ben Nevis, an unhelpful and confusing outcome." which can be found in Topographic prominence

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, having spotted that Snowden has Ben Nevis as its parent peak, I think I am beginning to understand the situation - sorry to have troubled you.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have parent peaks on Wikipedia for many peaks. There is more information via the parent peak link. Viewfinder (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very visually oriented, so I need to think of topographic prominence in terms of a visual analogy. Imagine you are standing at the top of a peak and imagine that an imaginary sea level (based on an elevated geoid) rises to your feet. Now slowly lower the imaginary sea level and an imaginary island appears beneath your feet. Your island will grow and will merge with other islands that will emerge. Eventually, your island will touch an island with a higher peak than your island (i.e., an imaginary island that existed before you started lowering the imaginary sea level.) The summit of that island will be the parent peak of the summit of your island, and the elevation difference of your summit and the elevation at which the two islands touch is the topographic prominence of your summit. It makes no difference how close or far the two summits are from one another. Mount Everest is the parent peak of Aconcagua (17,755 km away), as well as the parent of the South Summit of Mount Everest (360 m away). Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this to the relevant articles, I like it and hope that it will help more editors to grasp topographic prominence. Viewfinder (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post on my page. I am enjoying reading your comments in the archive. Subuey (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SB should be edit banned. Subuey (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subuey, as the victim of sustained overt, and more recently, sneaky personal attacks and intimidating topic ban nominations, by the above mentioned editor, it would not be right for me to comment on whether and if so how the above mentioned user should be sanctioned. But I would suggest that the withdrawal of this material that was part of a wholly unsourced and unsubstantiated attack piece cannot change the fact that it was put there by that editor, on a public forum, and remained there for 12 hours. Viewfinder (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob Barnett 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/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination) 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.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KhardungLa4A.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viewfinder. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius 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/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viewfinder. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Since I am NOT a topographic researcher, I will not attempt to engage in an edit war, because (A) you have expertise here, and I do not; (B) it's not really such a great matter that it would not be worth either of our time to argue; and (C) I personally think the category of "parent" to be relatively trivial.

And since I am indeed not a topographic researcher (but must admit some curiosity), I would ask you to explain (in relatively simple terminology) how a mountain in the southern Andes range can be a parent of a mountain in the Alaskan range, thousands of kilometers away. While I understand that they are both part of the American Cordillera, they are in separate ranges; the American Cordillera is described in Wikipedia as consisting of an "almost continuous sequence of mountain ranges", emphasis on the word "almost", and it seems that there are a few gaps (Panama, Nicaragua, even in Mexico) that I would think would break any parental chain. Therein lies my confusion.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- Couillaud 16:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

First, on the subject of edit warring, you made the original change, it was reverted by another editor, then you restored the change instead of discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Regardless of who has the expertise, you should not edit war except in the case of obvious vandalism. See WP:BRD.

Moving on to the subject of topographic parentage, please go to Topographic_prominence#Parent_peak, where it is discussed at length. There are some variations in definition, but under all definitions, Aconcagua is Denali's parent. You can, in theory, walk along a ridge connecting the two summits. Aconcagua has no parent because it is the highest point of the Americas, which together form a single land area surrounded by the sea. By contrast, North America is connected to South America by a natural land bridge. It follows that no summit on the North American mainland is without a parent.

If you wish to continue to challenge the category, please go to the talk page of the above linked article.

Viewfinder (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ben Lomond (Tasmania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Ossa. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tazing Dong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]