Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Elohim have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Elohim was changed by Idacticus (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.883622 on 2026-06-05T15:55:37+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2026 (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.

My edit has been undone by a bot. The change could be verified by reference to any concordance, and I don't know if I should reference one or which one to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idacticus (talk • contribs)

Please place new posts at the bottom, so they stay in order. Please report the edit as an error as instructed in the post above. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tanning (leather), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tweaked your fix. Provision of the DOI (which is, or anyway ought to be, permanently valid) makes provision of an URL superfluous. Deletion of the URL makes provision of an access-date superfluous (indeed, its provision throws up an error). ¶ I hope that this makes sense. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The URL makes it accessible for those who would do further study. There's no reason not to keep it. Idacticus (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Decree law. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Idacticus, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aga Syed Yusuf Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Religious court was added. 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) 11:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:OVERLINK. We don't link dates or countries. Dormskirk (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Thanks! Should I go back and revert them? Idacticus (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think I have already reverted most of them. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Well, not really villains of course. The talk page really is not the place to discuss Sheldrake's ideas themselves. But you have listed a number of things, some of which, like fingers stopping growing, are very well documented, then others, like "a new crossword puzzle being (as is also well documented) easier to complete after many other have completed it". I don't believe this for an instant, unless "documented" just means there are lots of anecdotes. A number of people, including Susan Blackmore, have tried to test things like the "Dogs knowing when their masters are coming home", but the results are always inconclusive. The claimed effects are so marginal it is almost impossible to agree on protocols, or indeed the results. Anyway, in the end WP is biased against woo, and I think this is how it has to be, partly because of a basic defect in the "sources" axiom: if it's written in a proper book, WP reports it. That just doesn't work here. You will see that there are a number of "anti-woo warriors", who tend to get carried away, and unfortunately this makes it difficult to balance an article like Sheldrake's. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The crossword puzzle phenomenon has been documented multiple times in multiple places, the most valid ones being long before the internet (of course), and was even the case when the same puzzle was published in London and then Los Angeles. I'd need to pull some books out of storage to get the sources, but they are in fact there.

The easiest test for repeatability is where you have someone called by one of four people, and before the call connects guess who is calling. It's cheap, repeatable, and obvious that over a large sample size the probability should come down to 25%, but reliably comes out significantly higher.

We can't just deny the findings of Kirlian photography because "aura's are woo," and neither should we dismiss what can be rigorously tested for falsification. Idacticus (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Cambalachero, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to be a duplicate of an existing article. Wikipedia does not permit multiple articles on the same topic.

• To improve the existing article, please edit it directly at Rule by decree. If the article is protected and you cannot edit it, propose your changes on the article's talk page.
• If you are writing about a different subject with the same name, ask the reviewer to rename your draft to distinguish it.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Decree law to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Cambalachero (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I read your comment at ANI and while I have no desire to participate any further there, I do want to correct a misunderstanding you seem to have regarding the WP:PUSHMYTH essay. You wrote, "... her belief that one cannot push a point of view while remaining civil...". That is not my belief nor what the essay says. Of course it is possible to push a POV while remaing civil. However, if an editor is truly POV pushing, being civil about it is beside the point: one of the policies or guidelines will apply.

The problem with countering "civil POV pushing" is that it takes steely composure and more work to prove.

This is what PUSHMYTH says. Read it carefully:

If an editor civilly proposes to expand an article using language or sources that are incompatible with NPOV, that expansion can be legitimately declined on content policy alone. If an editor civilly proposes to remove from an article language or sources that are compatible with NPOV, that too can be legitimately declined on content policy alone.

After explaining this position, the essay goes on to say:

But many Wikipedia articles fall below the "good article" (GA) grade. (And even good articles can be improved.) If an editor or group of editors cannot give legitimate policy reasons for opposing another editor's proposals or reverting an editor's edits, what should be examined is the POV of the section in question, perhaps even the article.

I could say more about that, but I won't.

As for the rest of your comment at ANI, I disagree that topic banning me will protect me. It actually will cause me a great deal of grief. What I want to do is undo the POV pushing that the sockpuppet introduced into the firearm magazines area. Then I want to get back to not editing gun-related articles - by choice.

As I've stated elsewhere, the reason addressing this problem is important to me is because the sockpuppet notified me on my talk page about these articles. I didn't go looking for gun-related articles to edit. They were brought to my doorstep. I honestly did not expect the kind of resistance that undoing the sockpuppet's work would bring, but that doesn't mean I want to give up on trying. Without naming names, I think there is some "civil POV pushing" going on and, as I said above, it takes composure and work to prove. Although being at ANI has been very stressful, it has been encouraging to see that quite a number of people are able to see what I've seen. I'd hate for this to go to ArbCom, but if it does and other involved parties' behavior is examined, I think it could bring balance to Wikipedia's gun-related topics.

But I do thank you for your concern. Sincerely, Lightbreather (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hagere Mariamna Kesem, a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Shewa Zone was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply