User talk:Mvaldemar

Welcome...

Hello, Mvaldemar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 七星 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words at Trailanga Swami

I replaced your use of "allegedly" with the neutral "reportedly". Please see WP:WEASEL for an explanation. NPOV requires the use of neutral terms, so your use of "allegedly" is also a violation of WP:NPOV. Priyanath ^talk 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Re your recent edit: please see Talk:Chiropractic #Pseudoscience and quackery. Eubulides (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply there; I followed up there again. I suggest watching that page if you would like to keep up with the conversation. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Requested Copy Edit Help for Seleucus I Nicator

Please tell me what "They" refers to in the sentence "They were only outlived by the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt by roughly 34 years." (I can't figure it out) thanks. --Remotelysensed (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the part you're referring to, but I believe "They" refers to the Seleucid Dynasty. Mvaldemar (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

Thanks for your improvements to the Infobox. Given the discussion at Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_9#Official_website, would you be okay with me removing what you've put as the official web page? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Belgian fascism

Just a quick note to congratulate you on some fine work on articles such as Devlag and Algemeene-SS Vlaanderen. Keep up the good work :) Keresaspa (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aland islands

Hello Valdemar,

Appreciate all the work you put into the Greater Germanic Reich article. I find your recent addition on the Aaland islands a bit questionable however. I can really see only two ways by which this territory could become part of that empire:

- one being an annexation by Sweden, after which that country is forced to join the Germanic Reich either willingly or unwillingly;

- or Germany annexes first Sweden, after which it then persuades the Finns to transfer control of Aland to them;

None of which make all that much sense.

The Nazi leadership was so committed to solidifying Finland as a German ally against the Soviet Union that asking them to give up any part of their own territory would be out of the question. The only scenario in which this could realistically happen is if the Germans had become so powerful post-war that they might as well annex the entire country. And the Swedes have no real hope of getting control of the islands beyond an outright invasion, which Germany would never stand by regardless of whether they were informed in advance or not. It seems more likely to me that the Germans would (try to) recruit the Aaland islanders to settle a Swedish colony in Eastern Europe, just as they were more than ready to give up the Banat to placate their allies in that region. The only real way I could see this working out is if the Germans gave the Finns something else in return, such as a guarantee from Hitler that the Kola peninsula would politically fall to Finland. --Morgan Hauser (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the book I referenced, I can refer to Weinberg, who states that Hitler was ready to transfer Åland to Sweden in the case of Swedish cooperation. How this would have worked in the post-war world is not clear. I guess the latter of your two scenarios seems more likely. It is worth to note that during Himmler's trip to Finland in July 1942 he had promised a portion northern Sweden to Finland, though this was rejected by the Finns. A some sort of territorial exchange might have eventually been possible? The islands were clearly of great interest to Hitler. During the summer of 1944 he ordered preparations for the occupation of Åland in the case Finland quit the war ("Tanne West")

It is also interesting that during the Winter War, Molotov had offered the islands to Sweden. The Swedish diplomat stated merely that any discussion concerning the issue could begin only after the war had ended.

The article shouldn't speculate on this topic any further. It is enough to state what the Nazis had in mind and leave it at that. Mvaldemar (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You’re right about trying to keep speculation out of it. It wouldn’t be the first time that incoherent or unrealistic plans were formulated by these people.

On a related note, as lenghty as that section already is, one mistake I think we did make is to characterize the attitudes towards the UK a bit too one-sidedly. Hitler tried most everything he could to ally with them, even while he was making plans for the dismantlement of the British Empire. Eventually India and Australia were assigned to the Japanese, Egypt to Italy, a huge swath of Africa slated to become a German overseas colony, South Africa turned into a separate, Apartheid-state ally, Canada likely to be seized by the US… doesn’t leave much of an empire for Germany to ally itself with.

It’s an interesting fact that before formulating the entire “Lebensraum in the East” philosophy for territorial expansion in Landsberg prison, Hitler’s attitudes in foreign policy were like those of his contemporaries: Versailles had to be overruled, and Germany’s primary enemies were France and Britain, not Russia. As Weinberg notes in Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933-1939 (p. 15-16), Mein Kampf contains some very implicit hints that Germany would no longer need Britain as an ally after establishing itself as a continent-based economic autarky, and would therefore have to be eliminated. Hitler’s attitudes toward Britain seem to have been a strange mixture of both admiration and hatred throughout the war. In other words, in an ideal situation Germany should ally itself with Britain and dispose of them at a much later time, but failing that, their immediate downfall would serve Nazist aspirations just the same.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:LutherMartinGermanForeignOffice.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LutherMartinGermanForeignOffice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:StuckartWilhelm.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StuckartWilhelm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HofmannOttoRuSHA.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HofmannOttoRuSHA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:MuellerHeinrichGestapo.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MuellerHeinrichGestapo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

German-Finnish-Norwegian disputes over the Kola peninsula

Hi Mvaldemar. I’ve been curious about the contradicting statements I’ve been reading from various sources about the intended status of the Kola peninsula after the start of Operation Barbarossa. It is generally included within the boundaries of Greater Finland, and from what I can gather Finnish sources also seem to assert that this territory was promised to them in addition to Eastern Karelia after the start of hostilities on the Eastern Front.

When discussions took place in 1940 between Finnish representatives and Herman Göring about the possibility of Finland joining Germany in the invasion of Soviet Russia which was then in the preparatory stages, he requested what borders they would like in the event of a Finnish-German victory. The Finns of course expressed the desire to take both Eastern Karelia and Kola, but Göring was unilaterally willing to concede only the first, the second depending on "economic considerations", meaning that it could be granted only if Germany had unlimited access to the nickel deposists in the region. This discussion cannot be taken with certainty however, since it was more the setting of a senior government official having a "social conversation" and not an official diplomatic discussion.[1] A single official like Göring also has no authority to hand over territories like that on his own accord, something that would ultimately depend on Hitler's decision.

In a major conference on 16 July 1941 he insisted on the contrary that Kola be turned over to Josef Terboven (already Reichskommissar of Norway) for exploitation, which Hitler immediately agreed to[2], and reiterated in his November 27 discussion with Finnish Foreign Minister Rolf Witting. When the Finns heard of this they expressed fear that Norway would annex the peninsula[3], but this need not be the case I suspect. Erich Koch for instance was simultaneously both Reichskommissar of the Ukraine (and later Ostland) and Gauleiter of East Prussa without these two realms being integrated, although that might be chalked down to a Reich territory/occupied territory difference. The Nazis were also unreceptive towards the very concept of a Greater Norway which Vidkun Quisling continously insisted on.

Since I’m not adept at reading Finnish, I wanted to ask you: do the Finnish sources (in this article for instance) mention anything about Hitler’s insistence that the Germany assume control over the Kola peninsula rather than Finland? Did the German-Finnish negotiations ever definitively resolve the future status of the region?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

During the Hitler-Witting discussion, Kola was actually unambiguously offered to Finland, as long as German economic interests (ie. the exploitation of mineral deposits and possibly sea ports for the German arctic fleet) were met.[4] [5]. The sincerity of this offer is questionable. Manninen (Suur-Suomen Ääriviivat, 1980) suggested that the Kola "prize" was used by Germany to ensure the military cooperation of the Finns during Operation Silberfuchs. For more, see von Blücher's diaries. On 5.9.41 Ryti informs him that the annexation of Kola is one of Finland's war aims. von Blücher subsequently asks Berlin for information. On 16.9 he is told (presumably the source is Hitler himself) that if Germany occupies Kola, it will be then given to the Finns. In October 1941, Ryti further expressed Finland's interest to annex the Peninsula to Schnurre, and the topic was unofficially discussed with von Blücher in August 1942.[6] I don't believe the issue was raised in any subsequent official Finnish-German talks (certainly not by Hitler or anyone close to him).

As for the 16.7.1941 conference, it was in this very same meeting where Hitler stated that Finland's future was to join Germany as a "federal state" (Bundestaat). Presumably he later changed his mind on this matter. It is thus possible that originally Kola was reserved for German (Norwegian?) annexation, but by late 1941 the military importance of the Finnish army (taking into consideration Hitler's fears of an Allied invasion of Norway) for the German war effort in the North had convinced Hitler that all possible measures (including meeting all Finnish territorial claims) had to be undertaken to keep Finland from signing a separate peace with the USSR.

It is also noteworthy that Ryti hoped that post-war Finland and any surviving remnant of the USSR/Russia shared NO border. He actually envisioned Germany annexing and colonizing the Arkhangelsk Oblast, which he suggested to be also partly colonized by the Finno-Ugric minorities of Russia, such as the Komi, the Mari and the Mordvins)[7]. Mvaldemar (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed 'Welthauptstadt Germania' and the relation of its proposed avenue with the 1945 Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten)

I refer to the details from a cited documentary source relating to the proposed 'Arch of Triumph' in the proposed avenue as mentioned in the subject line. Thank you very much indeed for providing this information the precise details of which I was myself unaware although I did happen to know about the proposal of an Arch of Triumph on this proposed avenue. If you doubt what I now myself add under 'Arch of Triumph' on this site Welthauptstadt Germania (being something which I am sure is well known to Germans even if they never mention it to ourselves as English or other foreigners, any more than do the Russians other than by the evidently intended message conveyed by an inscription in English on their own memorial on the road on the north side of which it stands, later given its present name with reference to the date of the revolution against themselves by the Germans within the eastern section of Berlin) you should be able to confirm this from any map of Berlin or better still from what I believe are the well-known contemporary German draftsmanship documents. In conclusion, rightly or wrongly I myself happen to believe that this (together with the matters that can be related to it or deduced from it) happens to be an important matter not only for the Germans and the Russians (or Soviets as they were at the time) but for all Europeans east and west. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.87.108 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Childless

Please do not re-add the list of quote-unquote famous childless people. That list was created for one purpose only, and that was to push a POV. Witness the two eugenicists and two dictators on the list, to say nothing of the ridiculous gender bias. A noninsignificant number of couples - five to ten percent, last I saw - don't have children. Thus, it would be ridiculous to attempt to list all the people with article who don't have children. There's a possibility for that section to work, but only if it is constrained to people for whom being childless was an important part of their fame. For example, a writer who wrote a significant work about not having children, or someone who was prominently noted for a statement about being childless. None of the people on the list you added had any connection to any sort of conscious childfree movement, nor were they social infertility (save possibly Haydn). See the talk page for my further information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the list in the first place and I can assure you that there was no POV-pushing. It included the names of childless couples I am aware of, and requested others to add more names. Your argumentation in this case is close to ad hominem: please see WP:NICE for more on acceptable conduct on Wikipedia.

Now, if the whole concept of the list is questionable, I might agree on the removal. I believe this topic should be discussed in greater detail before we do so, however. It might be the case that childless couples are today nothing out of the ordinary, but this was not the case 70 years ago. As you can see from the list, all of the individuals included are of historical notability, and thus their decisions to remain childless is intriguing enough to be noticed. Mvaldemar (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that you were intending anything wrong by re-adding the list, and (given that you have the userbox) I find it highly unlikely that you're trying to push the anti-childfreedom POV of that list. I will also admit to having not checked the history enough to see that you were the original author of the list. However, you did ignore the discussion on the talk page. I apologize for my brusque manner; it's not a reflection on you but on my personality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited From Beyond (short story), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Greater South Africa

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gigantomania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fascist Italy and Landkreuzer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bankocracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bank of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

apologies

I seemed to not know where to start or end with the vandalism at Martin Bormann - than ks for your cleanup SatuSuro 11:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martti Miettunen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Transport and Communications (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The System (Nazism)

nice article. Decora (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Prophecy of the Popes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Blavatsky

Your edits to Helena Blavatsky have been reverted four times now; time for you to use the Talk Page, instead of simply re-inserting your point of view again. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medieval university, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temple of Set, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Milieu, Satanic Panic and Prince of Darkness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magical motto, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Agatha, Jack Parsons and Gerald Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Reichs.-Moskowien

Read up on WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, please.--Galassi (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Temple Of Set

Thank you for your message.

Because the information in some passages wasn't deleted and because I want to be certain that I'm not removing accurate (as opposed to speculative) information that is cited I thought it best to leave a citation that I'm unfamiliar with. However, the work I did on that article, I think, does improve its actual readability which was desperately needed. Is there a specific citation that was linked to information not contained in that citation? Apex156 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin Merrell-Wolff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sierra Nevada. 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) 10:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning about your edit summary at Talk:National Reich Church

"false claims by jobas" isn't an acceptable edit summary. Please use more neutral ones in the future. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

His claims were objectively false. Mvaldemar (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mvaldemar. 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)

Good Catch on Responsibility for the Holocaust

After rereading your changes against the original wording, it did seem as the Einsatzgruppe Finnland was made up of Finnish members vice German. Upon review, I readjusted the wording to match what the source intended to communicate. It was a matter of collaboration vice wholesale initiative as the prior wording implied--thanks for catching that. --Obenritter (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Algemeene-SS Vlaanderen

Hi, since you contributed to the article, I'm letting you know about a redirect proposal that I started on the linked page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Church of Satan

The information you added to Church of Satan is not supported by the source you cited, so I corrected the edit using your source and added supporting details on the talk page. You deleted my edits and called them nonsense. My edit correctly references the source you cited and it's discussed on the talk page, do not delete correctly referenced information or you'll be reported for vandalism.Seanbonner (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Church of Satan. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Church of Satan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mvaldemar. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mvaldemar. 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)