User talk:Salmoonlight

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing an historic to a historic. It's not an error. Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 14 November 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This edit violates WP:ONUS. Please self revert. Dovidroth (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS is not for things you simply disagree with. Your personal feelings should not be used as a source. And regardless, you still never reached a consensus on the talk page. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onus states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". As such, as long as there is no consensus, you many not include the controversial text in the article. Dovidroth (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indigenous peoples. 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. Dovidroth (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got it the first time, you don't have to ping me again. And I haven't tried doing anything since that IP reverted me. How about you go on their talk page too? Salmoonlight (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the message. I apologize if it pinged you twice. Dovidroth (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see that you have made a large number of minor edits to establish your ability to edit restricted pages, but you do not appear to understand our NPOV and Verification policies, among others. Please study those policy pages and also WP:BRD. When an edit is challenged by reversion, it should be brought to the article talk page to determine whether there is consensus to reinstate it on the article page. If you edit-war or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, your account may be blocked from editing.
SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing in this topic for months now. Salmoonlight (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit statistics show that your significant participation in this area began much more recently. But at any rate: Everyone, regardless of tenure on this site, is required to follow our Policies and Guidelines. And per the notice above this is particularly important and critically enforced on pages designated as relating to Contentious Topics. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey salmoonlight :). So I saw you removed an npov tag I added [1]. So I opened a talk discussion and there pointed out several problems which were not addressed and which you did not reply too. Can you please restore the tag until we sort out the problems? From what I know one is usually supposed to answer in the talk and explain the removal. I imagine you did not notice the discussion that I opened. Would you like me to send you a link? Homerethegreat (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salmoonlight. Thank you for your work on Concordia Township, Des Moines County, Iowa. Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please continue to develop the article. The USGS is not enough. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salmoonlight. Thank you for your work on Jackson Township, Des Moines County, Iowa. Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please develop the Iowa stubs. Articles need more than the USGS as a reference.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Salmoonlight, I because of this edit to Salicornia rubra I think you may not have seen the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on what generally should not be linked. It is generally a good idea to avoid linking commonly known places, people, etc. like United States in most articles. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like all categorisation in Wikipedia, the addition of a category requires the article to have verified (appropriate cited) information that justifies that categorisation. I notice you are adding sacred mountain categories to some mountains in Queensland where there is no information in the article about the mountain being sacred or that claim is made but is uncited. So can you please ensure that the cited information is available in the article before categorisation. It is probably worthwhile being clear to whom it is sacred. Thanks 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Kerry (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Launch titles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:

1. 14:46, 2 March 2024, 14:44, 2 March 2024, and 14:44, 2 March 2024
2. 00:14, 3 March 2024

Please self-revert 00:14, 3 March 2024. Further, please remember that the NPOV template should only be removed when the conditions to do so are met. BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Salmoonlight. Thank you.

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. More attention on the subject can help the community come to a reasonable decision. But I noticed the input you provided is based on your personal analysis of the subject. This type of input can be counterproductive, because consensus on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and policy-based arguments. In the case of a page move, arguments should be based on what the subject is explicitly called in reliable sources, not what individual editors understand or determine it to be. Personal interpretation or analysis is generally given little to no weight when determining the results of the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are deleting spaces before stub tags. There should be two spaces before the stub tag. See: WP:STUBSPACING. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted several of your edits regarding spacing before stub tags. Please don't delete that 2nd space. Masterhatch (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Salmoonlight is indefinitely topic banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per consensus among uninvolved administrators at this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A month ago you were queried about Australian sacred mountains - now Indonesian - have you a source for the assertion? WP:RS = ??? thanks. JarrahTree 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Indonesia category because they were already categorized as sacred; I was simply diffusing the main category. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - thanks for your answer, the problem being that where the trail starts or ends, the likelihood that the category is based on allusion rather than sources verifiable... cheers JarrahTree 12:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]