Notifying other editors

Hello! About your article talk page edits here and here, those did not notify me or the other editors you were attempting to "ping". To notify other editors of your discussion posts, you can use the {{Reply to}} template, and sign the post in the same edit. As it says on the template page, "You cannot directly type the "@" symbol to notify a user of your reply, you must use the template documented here or manually create a wikilink to their user page." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes! Thank you very much, Mudwater! It must have been sitting there looking purposeless in my earlier comment. I rectified the mistake in my latest. :) Fenharrow (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh and if you don't mind me asking, what prompted you to name your wikipedia account "Mudwater"? Fenharrow (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

GSL

What makes you think I accused them of anything? DN (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey DN! It kinda seemed like you might be hinting they were being less than honest—maybe I read it wrong? I’ve been a little cautious about our exchanges from the start; even though it’s just through TP messages, sometimes it feels like a bit of a punch to the gut! Anyway, thanks for reaching out and hope you have a great day (or night)! Fenharrow (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for appearing aggressive, it just seemed like a mistake, not an intentional lie. DN (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Your thread has been archived

Hello Fenharrow! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Wikipedia's policies, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Fenharrow! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Question regarding references, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Two Witnesses

I was removing the dispensational bias of the article and rendering it more scholarly, accurate, and neutral. The Two Witnesses of Revelation were the subject of my research for my dissertation. If you could please put back my edits. Thanks. Malachirobertson (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I removed any of your edits, not from your @Malachirobertson account at least. Fenharrow (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You added back the original material that reflects the dispensationalist bias. Some statements reflected a bias towards the symbolic interpretation, which I changed as well. Malachirobertson (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please add your edit back with adequate references and an edit summary. If not it could be reverted again. Fenharrow (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ouch, not the trout! Fenharrow (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You're my first trout 🤣 Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

A note about Colin Duriez

Hi, thanks for taking care of this article. It may be useful to know that there has been a sustained campaign of (student-like?) vandalism on this article, I don't know why, probably something on social media. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jon Hartley

A tag has been placed on Jon Hartley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hartley. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Jon Hartley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jon Hartley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hartley (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

April 2026

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious if this user's block has anything to do with WP:AN#Iljhgtn? They were both responsible for a lot of "changes" at Gun show loophole last year. DN (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fenharrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I see that I have been blocked in conjunction with a few accounts for "sock puppeting". While I did have multiple accounts here (Riverbend21 and Fenharrow) I never used them maliciously to support one another or influence decisions of any kind typical of sock accounts. I did not know when I started editing Wikipedia that there were policies that required a user to edit out of one account and when Riverbend got blocked, I just reverted to using Fenharrow because it seemed easier, I realise that I should have made it clear then that I was unrelated to the other accounts rather than evade the block. While I am guilty of block evasion and sock puppetry, I can say with certainty that I have nothing to do with the other accounts that are supposedly connected to me here. If I am granted an opportunity to revive my oldest account "Fenharrow" through the standard offer, I commit to using this account exclusively and not use multiple accounts in the future. Fenharrow (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Hello, and thank you for acknowledging your connection to Riverbend21. To be very clear: Your position is that you have no connection whatsoever to any of the following accounts?
  • PapaTakaro (talk · contribs)
  • Th78blue (talk · contribs)
  • Moops (talk · contribs)
  • Tacticalpen (talk · contribs)
  • Loveandmath (talk · contribs)
  • Lotsoftickles (talk · contribs)
  • Blackhydro (talk · contribs)
  • Pulpfiction621 (talk · contribs)
  • Firefly115 (talk · contribs)
  • Iljhgtn (talk · contribs)
• Thanks, --Blablubbs (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct Fenharrow (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there anything else that is required of me? Fenharrow (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Blablubbs: is this technically plausible? Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Staraction: Technically maybe, but the data isn't great at this point. Behaviourally though, I don't think so. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)