User talk:Railsparks

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Direct Democracy Ireland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. With COI you shouldnt edit the article, and you keep breaking the links, and removing cited material. WP:3RR is a good read too Murry1975 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

murray1975 sorry new to this still trying to figure it out,but i was requesting changes to the ddi page and also you said DDI wasnt around in 1922 of course they werent but Direct Democracy was why dont you list article 47 of the 1922 constituiton for everyone to see other would you rather keep up the pretende that we never had it.

Because DDI have nothing to do with the 1922 constitution, why not link democarcy in ancient Greece? I has nothing to do with them either. Murry1975 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the sole purpose of DDI being formed was to reinstate Direct Democracy back into the constitution like it was in 1922 maybe should read article 47 of the 1922 constitution and then look at article 47 of the current constitution and you will see the difference,i can always copy and paste it if you like if you cant find it.

Direct demorcary isnt meantioned in the 1922 constitution, "on the written demand of two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann" and then a direct vote, isnt direct democracy. Also the 1922 states "I will be faithful to H. M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations".

I see you have pur forward yourself for adminship. A way to get around the article editing restriction? A few of things, you have to have a good high level contribution history, and other people have to express faith in your abilities and show such qaulities in your edit history, and your suppor for yourself is a given. It aint gonna happen with your Murry1975 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read, WP:ISNOT and WP:NOTHERE. Murry1975 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

murray1975 i see deleted the reply about direct democracy being in our 1922 constitution this just shows you are biased towards Direct Democracy Ireland or part of a political grouping that does not want it,admins are supposed to be neutral and not one sided which you clearly ,as it was cited material that i had put on this page and you had removed it.So you prefer to put up material that suits you and not what is the truth.it is you that should be removed as aan admin.

I have archived your RfA, given that you did not complete the nomination process and you do not meet the implicit criteria for adminship (see WP:NOTNOW). I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Antrocent (♫♬) 04:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

attrocent if the correct infomation is put on the DDI i wouldnt have to keep editing the page but as murray1975 seams fit to post material that is not conclusive to DDI but being totally biased even on my talk page he deleted cited material as Direct Democracy being in our first constitution it shows him to totally biased against DDI and would a request to have removed from edition the DDI page as its only for his own agenda or if he was to allow this cited material to be posted without him removing it every time material is posted. Below is articles 47&48 of the 1922 constitution with the provision of (Direct Democracy)

Article 47.

Any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses may be suspended for a period of ninety days on the written demand of two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann or of a majority of the members of Seanad Eireann presented to the President of the Executive Council not later than seven days from the day on which such Bill shall have been so passed or deemed to have been so passed. Such a Bill shall in accordance with regulations to be made by the Oireachtas be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people if demanded before the expiration of the ninety days either by a resolution of Seanad Eireann assented to by three-fifths of the members of Seanad Eireann, or by a petition signed by not less than one-twentieth of the voters then on the register of voters, and the decision of the people by a majority of the votes recorded on such Referendum shall be conclusive. These provisions shall not apply to Money Bills or to such Bills as shall be declared by both Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.

Article 48.

The Oireachtas may provide for the Initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall on the petition of not less than seventy five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum. Any legislation passed by the Oireachtas providing for such Initiation by the people shall provide (1) that such proposals may be initiated on a petition of fifty thousand voters on the register, (2) that if the Oireachtas rejects a proposal so initiated it shall be submitted to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum; and (3) that if the Oireachtas enacts a proposal so initiated, such enactment shall be subject to the provisions respecting ordinary legislation or amendments of the Constitution as the case may be.

this is the cited material that murray1975 keeps removing from the DDI page this material can easily be verified by following this link www.irishstatutebook.ie/1922/en/act/pub/0001/print.html

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Dear wiki i have repeatedly tried to make corrections to Direct democracy ireland,jan van de ven is not the current leader of DDI Pat Greene is http://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/honour-and-privilege-to-be-elected-once-againpat-greene-leader-of-direct-democracy-ireland/ also there is other issues with the page that have not bee allowed to be correct,most the cited material used is just heresay and not actual fact.

Done Stickee (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi i am looking for the reference to be removed in relation to DDI of the primetime interview (Rita O'Reilly (24 October 2013). A Matter of Trust - RTÉ Prime Time (Investigative Documentary into the Freeman movement in Ireland, National Television). Dublin, Ireland: Radio Teilifís Éireann.)this interview was engineered to discredit,DDI themselves were not allowed to have any opinion or given chance to confirm or deny this it was just typical gutter journalism as you would find in ireland.

Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Direct Democracy Ireland  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get a hobby, you deluded fantacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.220.53 (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Direct Democracy Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Direct Democracy Ireland 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Murry1975 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

first of i did used cited material to make the edit and now your saying that that is unsourced which i did use form the Irish Times so that is not cited material then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Railsparks it has to independently reported, in other words not a quote from one of the DDI saying what they are, Gilroy in this case "The party is not “left or right but about balance”, party member Ben Gilroy said as he invited people and groups to join." You have been on here long enough to know this. Murry1975 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if that is the case then that would apply to political partys and grops making up there own story about a political party and publishing it on there website,and then being used as sourced material,but you seam to have no problem with that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 14:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Railsparks, you and Murry1975 need to discuss this instead of reverting each other. I've fully protected the article for a couple days to allow for this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi have tried to make factual correction on the DDI page but to no avail it is always murry1975 or snappy who revert the page they seam to be watching the page like a hawk for any changes,as soon as a change is made they have it reverted within a few minutes,that is not the actions of someone who un biased or neutral,as i have previously stated the supposed cited material is alleged and not proven,there seams to be no problem using material off another political partys website for sourceable material but when i try to do it i am told i cant,these reference need to be taken down or backed up with creditable evidence to substantiate these these claims.

Reuters is not a blog. It is a reliable source, something you are having a bit of difficulty grasping. Murry1975 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC) are you sure its not a blog maybe you should do a bit more research as this was copied from there page. blogs.reuters.com/padraic-halpin/page/12/?archive=articles&page... Jul 16, 2015 - DUBLIN, July 16 (Reuters) – Former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern ... Social Democrats latest new Irish party ahead of uncertain elections.[reply]

(Below added from my page, try keep all together)

so i see its ok to use a blog as sourceable material for one group but not another just shows how unbiased and neutral you are as thats what editors are supposed to be you have just shown your true colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about???? Reuters aint a blog!!! It as an article written by its Irish political correspondent, not blog. YOu are the one that added a primary source, and incorrectly cited it. Murry1975 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so can you not read the first 4 letter work try putting your glasses on (blogs.reuters.com/padraic-halpin)

Not on the page I was linked to,

uk.reuters.com

Also sign your comments, the first piece on this page said it to you and it still apllies. Murry1975 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

blogs.reuters.com/padraic-halpin/page/12/?archive=articles&page=13 Jul 16, 2015 - DUBLIN, July 16 (Reuters) – Former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern ... Social Democrats latest new Irish party ahead of uncertain elections.[[:railsparks}}[blogs.reuters.com/padraic-halpin/page/12/?archive=articles&page=13] Jul 16, 2015 - DUBLIN, July 16 (Reuters) – Former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern ... Social Democrats latest new Irish party ahead of uncertain elections.</ref>

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

i am finding it very difficult to edit this page user murry1975 and snappy are repeatedly reverting changes that have been made on the DDI page most of the reference material that has been used is unsubstaniated but it is allowed to be used as factual material,wikipedia editors are supposed to be unbiased and neutral but clear this not the case.Railsparks (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Railsparks, this is not a place to discuss edits to a specific article. You should discuss them with other editor's at the article's talk page (Talk:Direct Democracy Ireland). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Vanjagenije, i have tried this several times to discuss with other editors to no avail,i have asked several questions relating to Direct Democracy Ireland wiki page questioning the reliability of the sources but have been told thats whats there and thats the way it is,i will happily discuss this with someone except 3 editors on the page who do not have a NPOV. Railsparks (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user(snappy) i suppose you are going to say now that the irish times is not citable materialRailsparks (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Direct Democracy Ireland— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Direct Democracy Ireland 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user batsun i have tried to reason with editors but to no avail i have used citable material which i was told i could use and when i use it the page is reverted i have left queations on the users pages and they have not replied,if you are willing to accept my sources as citable sources i will engage in a calm and collective manner.Railsparks (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness; you seem to have created quite a fuss. The topic in which you take an interest is of no interest to me, but I can suggest stepping back and widening your scope. Get experience editing articles on topics of little relation to your current main focus. Other, more experienced editors tend to take into consideration such breadth of interest when evaluating someone's contribution to a controversial topic. On the other hand, if you're really here just to win one controversy, that will be extremely difficult and I can't provide much in the way of useful advice. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jim are are you saying that fiction is a good credible source as most of the article on DDI wiki are just that but no on here will admit that i have pointed out several issues with the DDI wiki page left messages on talk pages and no replies,so it seams to be that fiction and unsubstantiated work is allowed to be used as fact. Railsparks (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I don't see where I mentioned such a doctrine. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi jim i didnt say you used it i was just asking is fiction or opinions or even unsubstantiated articles a good creditable source.Railsparks (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if such sources were to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but I have lived long enough to be surprised many times. If you seek advice in applying that guideline to a particular case, you might find success in its talk page, or with someone who knows or would be pleased to know about the particular case. On the other hand if you ask people whether they mean something they clearly didn't say, or otherwise show failure to pay attention, they are unlikely to remain attentive enough to learn anything about the case. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been a member (and/or supporter) of DDI? Come clean and 'fess up! Snappy (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one question for you snappy is this a citable source?^[1]Railsparks (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place to ensure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that they can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "They think this source is unreliable", but rather write "Disagreement about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC) thankRailsparks (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Railsparks. You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access to the channel.

Railsparks (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC) i have a Disagreement about the reliability of a source[reply]

i have a Disagreement about the reliability of a source

Hello Railsparks. You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access to the channel.

Railsparks (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Railsparks. You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access to the channel.

i have a Disagreement about the reliability of a sourceRailsparks (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One place to inquire about reliable sources is at the reliable sources noticeboard. /wia /tlk 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Direct Democracy Ireland 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And i have left a question on the DDI talk page which Batsun never answeredRailsparks (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! you still have not answered.Railsparks (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! under references #5 is linked to ideology i have read the article and there is no reference to right wing populism so i am now asking for that reference to be move to a more suitable location Railsparks (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in relation to the political possition of DDI being Right Wing in not one of the reference used does it say that DDI is right wing so i am now calling for this to removed until such time as it is proven otherwise.Railsparks (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. If discussion with the other editor on the article's talkpage failed, you should ask for comment. Please read the guidelines carefully, and make sure you're not in the wrong (things such as point of view pushing, edit warring... etc). —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 18:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Are you sure you were in the right talk page? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Labour Party (Ireland) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well cited material was used but kept being reverted back to the original.

Hello, Railsparks! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure democracy (also known as direct democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of modern democracies, which are representative democracies.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring at Direct Democracy Ireland. You were clearly aware that the event you were participating in was an edit war, as you yourself for one of your reverts on the article gave an edit summary which said "stop edit warning [sic] or you will be reported". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.[reply]

JamesBWatsonso are you willing to have a discussion regarding the articles and supposed reference material thats on 3 different page but are all the same article Railsparks (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement here has been purely administrative, dealing with the issue of edit-warring, and I have no wish to get involved either in discussions relating to the content of the article or in editing the article itself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Railsparks. 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]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Railsparks, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 01:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Railsparks. 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]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Juneteenth on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Italian political parties on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:European Parliament on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charlie Kirk (activist) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conrad Black, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination and Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Odal (rune) and Template talk:Coup d'état on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Draghi Cabinet on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi railsparks! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over a year.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in two years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|railsparks|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]