I have a big foot

punctuation

Hello.

Please note proper punctuation as in this edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, I have a big foot. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Gertrude Marvin Williams) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gertrude Marvin Williams, I have a big foot!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a VIAF link.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, I have a big foot. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jan Guzyk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Materialization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts based on CheckUser evidence. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System so that a CheckUser may assess your unblock request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I live in a block of flats that is shared residence amongst many computers. I have been incorrectly blocked. I have been making good edits to this website for over a year. I am not related to the accounts you have linked me to. I have a big foot (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The technical and behavioural evidence make that explanation unlikely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What behavioural evidence and what technical evidence? You opened an SPI case, listed no behaviour evidence and then closed it without any discussion within a few minutes. Why did you suddenly open a sock-puppet investigation, based on what evidence? Several of those accounts were only created last week, they are nothing to do with me. I have a big foot (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reason was "I've blocked them as suspected socks of Anglo Pyramidologist given the (limited) technical evidence and that they are editing in the same topic area". The accounts that have been blocked Watcher1968, Storyfellow, Watcher1968 have not edited on the same articles as me. This account [1] was indeed mine, but I only used it once at a public internet café and even used the suitable template. I have a big foot (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The accounts I blocked all shared the same topic area of interest, whether or not they are related to Anglo Pyramidologist is only a possibility but the accounts I blocked are definitely confirmed to each other. If you want to appeal, the best way to do that is via WP:UTRS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that I ought to offer some explanation of what happened here, just in case you're telling the truth that your block was a false positive. On January 16th, I sent e-mail to ArbCom asking them to run a checkuser on a different account (not this one), because the account's behavior indicated that it was most likely a sockpuppet. Callanecc subsequently ran a checkuser, and the check turned up several other accounts in addition to the one I was reporting. The decision to block these accounts occurred in private, and the SPI case appears to have been opened just for the purpose of proper record-keeping.

I didn't mention user:I have a big foot in my report to ArbCom, so I have no opinion about whether this account is a sock or not. Unfortunately, Anglo Pyramidologist seems quite adept at making his socks behave in a convincing way, so if your own block was erroneous, it might be difficult to prove that. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Critics of the Christ myth theory has been nominated for deletion

Category:Critics of the Christ myth theory has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 23:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)