Editing tools

Talkback

Hello, Hilarleo. You have new messages at Hilarleo's talk page.
Message added 08:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2-Do WP User Parking

2-Do: WP articles I'm working with/from

Mr. Freedom(film)

Depleted uranium

meta:wikimedia#Western imperialism

wikimedia:meta#Tunnel vision#The encyclopedia that Slashdot built#Western imperialism]

wikimedia:meta#Tunnel vision#The encyclopedia that Slashdot built

2-Do: 'New articles' needed

NeuroElectric Therapy,

Taboo! the drag performer
Mistress Formika
Donna Giles

Discussion

Sonny Rollins and narcotics

You've been expanding this section today. Any chance of adding some references - for example on the extent to which a lifestyle-recovery was unusual at that time (relative to others - say Coltrane?) and Rollins own fears? Otherwise the paragraph is open to Citation-required notices. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As indeed I see another editor just did! AllyD (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad ya din't bother to link to the article/section in question. I dunno what you're off about. But pleeze, *FEEL FREE* to add all the useful material ya got there. Tschuss! Happy nu-YARRR!!!Hilarleo (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Santorum and other things

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time at the moment to do major editing work like breaking up this page - if you think you can do it yourself, then I encourage you to be bold and just go ahead and do it. If not, I should be able to properly look at it myself later this week.

As for Alexander Zhukov - the article was on a minor Russian professor who didn't seem particularly notable. You may have him confused with Viktor Zubkov (Russian prime minister and President Medvedev's successor). But if you feel the article should be restored, feel free to make a request at WP:Deletion review.

Lastly, as for my user name - it's not any commercial fantasy character that I'm aware of, it's a name I made up myself (for a fantasy roleplaying game) and use on the Internet. There is a Marvel comics character called Terrax, which is quite similar, but I only found out about that after I chose the name.

If you have any other comments or messages, please send them - if not, happy new year, and happy editing! Terraxos (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calpernia Addams

Um...what? Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Leonard Pickard

I find your edits problematic, most notably in terms of NPOV, BLP, and REF. Please review those three pages and begin making use of references whenever you add content. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas- Have you any particular interest in the William Leonard Pickard case- Or do you simply seek and follow new editing activity? I wager the latter- or, I maintain, you'd be aware of something of the nature of particularly difficult research. This Pickard case is not new- but the article reads as if. Why? Allow me to refer you to two quotes from Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

“Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily. As with a house, knowledge takes time to build. Don't be the inspector, prying the seams apart before the product is even near-presentable…”

"Wikipedia, the potential "sum of all human knowledge", as a general rule, is a work-in-progress. Wikipedia is not published all at once. It evolves and grows. Every article is still being written, albeit slowly..."

Wikipedia (WP) guidelines have an inherent bias around our own prejudices against counter-cultures, undergrounds, criminals, etc.- our cultural 'shadow'- in that the guidelines assume an unlikely 'good faith' matrix of freely-available data- and an educated culture. It's unpopular for Americans to consider, but cultural/political forces do have means & motive to warp 'verifiable sources' of the most widely-disseminated information. It's a centralized science. Chomsky has related this process to CIA "Nation building": In the USA, numerous journals still notoriously carry CIA material and 'planted' writers- part of a decadent Corporate system designed to support the status quo and to be impenetrable to democracy. And this process indicates a new magnitude of :notability for affected data. So- Does WP care? No.

But some examples illustrate how it should inform Editorial consensus: A century ago, culturally-biased "verifiable sources" told us Africans were closer to brute Hominids than white 'humans'. Today we say we have protections in place. But it's a convenience; a facade. With significant revelations concerning fundamental problems within the FBI (a primary source of what defines 'verifiable information' to a still-rascist society) the only criticism on that page or linking to it concerns safely-dead J. Edgar Hoover. This is not balance. It's incredible. But it's not all the fault of our apolitical masses of WP Editors. It's partially a result of "Nation Building"- culturally assumed and culturally directed propaganda- anf a situation inviting contextual Deconstruction.

Officially-tolerated information concerning non-co-optable counter-cultures (increasingly defined as Crime, Nationalism, Terrorism) has become vanishingly rare in the corporate New world order (NWO); by design such prominent subjects appear increasingly less-notable (Nonpersons) in NWO's 'official', 'verifiable sources' and its dominant culture. "Official State" cultures today deny the legitimacy or prescence of media in prisons and most other war zones. But does the response indicate suppressed matters are unimportant? Paradoxically the situation can actually indicate a far greater import to events- as both rare material and as profound elements of the Jungian 'shadow'. Does this mean WP has no ability to present these matters encyclopedically and responsibly? Not at all.

But it means the balance to the article must be approached all the more carefully- and boldly. WP:Policy is not promotion of WP:Truth- so this has to remain an Editorial agenda. Other Editors will find it pays to distort consensus to the status quo...

I've only been with this page for a few weeks; but even I can see that removing every (non-libelous,) "controversial" (ie., unpopular, difficult to reconcile, and/or unsourced] bit of info as they arrive will tend to move this article 2-steps back. Editors attracted to the article lose the historic consensus (generally reported and remebered) picture in favor of a pendulumn swing back to the Lowest common denominator, and the work to construct the most accurate picture of the situation suffers. Demanding obscure, 'contoversial' data be removed before it can even be verified is drive-by editing at its worst.

Reconciliation of the issue will not lie at more subtle layers of WP policy. But a culture of "Drive-By Editors" must become mature enough to deal with a more-nuanced etiquette. Better and more productive is to research- to build and to validate development of the best possible articles and create a consensus of informed readership. Surely there's something more construvtive we could be doing than simply pointing out the obvious to demand deletions on the points of a blind ideology. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 09:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halton Arp Critics

Hello again

[trying for guidance re the suspicious activity destroying the visionary significance of the Arp article I appealed to this WP mentor, who appaently never saw thru the astronomy to see what was happening to WP here:]
In what exact way may I be useful to you? I briefly checked your links and saw they are astronomy-related, but I have no idea on the dispute(s) at hand (not to mention about astronomy as a subject in general). The best advice I can give you, is to find independent, verifiable and reliable sources, and to paste those sources as references along with the changes you wish to make in these articles. Check out WP:BLP for the first one also. Be sure your views are represented in due proportion within the article, and also to be civil to others (even when provoked) and to discuss your changes. That should do it, but if it doesn't, there are steps for dispute resolution you can follow. Cheers, and good luck! Niko Silver 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, babelfish translated Watch out literally! (like as if the watch is out for partying). Anyway, I still don't understand. Who did what when and why? Why is that bad? I really can't help if I don't know the basics of the dispute. I don't even know if there's a dispute to begin with... Niko Silver 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the sources are not that reliable yet, then I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't give a dime. Wikipedia does not care about The Truth^TM; it only cares about what is verifiable. So, these sources have to fight their battle elsewhere, to become more reliable, more academic, more mainstream, more cabalistic, and professed by esteemed scholars, before they make their way into WP. I respect your view (and I really know zilt about the issue), but you have chosen the wrong medium to propose it. Wikipedia merely reflects what people say out there. Not what the truth is, no matter how right, how against the media/whatever cabal, or how good that is. Sorry for not being able to help in this site, and pardon my bluntness in my last advice: find reliable sources -or- try elsewhere to make those sources deserve the "reliable" label. Niko Silver 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halton Arp Critics

Hilarleo, I don't edit much on Wikipedia anymore, but I have noticed that the Halton Arp "Critics" section is still an incoherent POV mess. Do you want to have a shot at cleaning it up, or would you rather wait until I get around to it (which could be a long wait)? LowKey (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudoscience" vs "Alternative theoretical formulations"- dANGER aHEAD

LowKey, <3-2...LOVE to. Just realized this same Editor crowd was the November 2006 focus of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience; & it's been going on far longer than that.

I do feel that to fight a broad and reasoned Editors' consensus, a (tiny) minority has consistently used tenacity- plus pointy defs of what is a specific "verifiable" source. Among specific competing science journals, claims are made that "My journals are more verifiable than yours". This is abuse of Policy. It's clear what we have here is WP:NPOV#Alternative theoretical formulations. All this stuff is 'mainstream' science; fully published (just maybe not always in America).

So the resulting contentious articles are of course messy, impenetrable jargon. Yet the positions inherently described are actually impressively intuitive, a full magnitude beyond the current Academic position (ie., the "98% indetectable, 'dark-matter' universe" [that's a religion- my native Catholicism]). I'd assume this foul result is the objective of the minority- to denigrate Arp's potentially revolutionary elegant (and competing) work. BTW I learned one of the minority works at Max Plank- as does Arp...Is this so petty?

Resolution may one day fall to further WP policy like Alternative theories, and more pointy defs of what is a specific "verifiable" source among specific competing journals. But this is approaching stupid. Policy is being abused by pointy-ness for win. In fact, just to scare off previous mediators (one assigned), the minority's pulled out technical arguments only experts can follow, and we're 'off to the races' again, without the mediator. My own observations supporting existing consensus have likewise been attacked by the minority as part of the "pseudo-scientific" consensus oppossing the 'more reasonable', more familiar "Standard Cosmology". But...ew, can science be both 'Standard' AND a "Alternative Theory"? American know this intuitively- There can be no 'alternatives'. We have huge investments and constructs surrounding yesterdays' 'theoretical formulations, and they serve us well enough. Capitalism <3's Big Science, so it's the one true BS. In our increasingly polarized, floundering culture, there's just not enough money to go around for competitive science. Anti-Arp minorities must defend status quo sciences... like Nukes, they cannot compete alone.Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove This Page

User:Hilarleo/ Taint no thang is a polite discussion of the merits of working small, without the virtue of any editing- vs here in the big pond where you have to get yer facts straight and prove to others just how yer college ideals matter- as if. It's not idiosyncratic particulars of your amazing journey which are key. It's co-op principles- the gracious, spacious architecture- and some stability which made Barington Hall such a happening for us. Size does indeed matter, and hiding away in a cul-de-sac is a denial of that charm.

Otherwise, Barringtonia - & anything and everything Barrington Hall- should be represented in the Barrington Collection of The Bancroft Library. This is the scary-fun Sanctum Sanctorum of Cal; and deserves patronage from all CalBears _{[& the Bancroft HAS returned to the permanent, hermetically-controlled underground location @north end of the Doe Library complex]}. Please consider gifting all your USCA/BA ephemera to the Bancroft in your wills- your grandkids sure wont care.) Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

Barrington but 1st.Astanhope

- Just in case you didn't see this on the Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Barrington_Hall --AStanhope (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. In terms of me excising that note, in rethinking it, I realize that I did so because it felt like it was there to torment Joel and I didn't think we needed to do that. No hard feelings towards you. The anti-Barrington jerks who revert everything we do in that article don't need any more ammo against the article - and Joel is a living, breathing person who I am fond of and didn't want to see him get slapped around publicly. If you want to beat up Joel online, maybe do it in the Facebook group instead? --AStanhope (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AS: Your rationale which you posted at Please Remove This Page is no more than the sentimental, reactionary impulse on display elsewhere. "We" post nothing. *I* post for my own ends, which you do not ken. But you admit your reasons are invalid as WP policy while you construe effective argument as personal attack- the kind of thing you evidently feel free to engage in with me. Do not project your issues on me. OTOH IF you rilly need to infantilize little lost Joel, pull the damn page down as he requests. What a muddle you offer. No wonder the page attracts haters.

And as for your "jerk" Editor(where, btw, such language is objective personal attack on Minderbinder, more aggressive than anything required by he or I, b/c *We* offer valid arguments)- This article is poorly sourced according to the current development of WP guidelines, and Mb serves "Us" well to illustrate that it's common knowledge. Who takes a position he can't win when there are options? OR are you puppetting for other, banned Editors? Your defense of this page is degraded; It's disingenuous of you to argue your preferred end justifies every discourtesy you choose to employ against those who oppose whim. And any connaivance you suggest speaks for itself.

In spite of- or b/c of the liberal cant, I begin to suspect your process has yet to be bothered with reflection anywhere near up to the issues you encounter. The problems humans face are not produced by dialectic. It is the means of our evolution... except for the oblivious who can internalize failure and isolate from the real. I begin to appreciate some of Joel's objections about this page. Hilarleo00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re countercultures & 'reliable published sources'

Hi. This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article, more an escaped bit of talk page discussion; so rather than propose it for deletion I have moved it into your user space at User:Hilarleo/Re countercultures & 'reliable published sources'. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. but I dont understand what's happened. Indeed it is an escaped page of mine talk page. But the page and my info seems to be deleted now, so it or I may be back...Hilarleo (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page in article-space has been deleted, but your material is still there in your user-subpage where I moved it: click on the blue-link in my note just above. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your very prompt help John. Hilarleo (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shambhala wiki

Hey Hilarleo, I'm working on a Shambhala wiki. Any interest in helping? Or reviewing the format? I'm looking for experienced wiki editors for feedback and to help. The site is at labelingthoughts.org if you have a moment. thanks! - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jonathan King/GA2

Hey, I'll be reviewing this. You should get some feedback by Thursday at the latest. — R ² 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a lot of work in my opinion so I have had to quick fail it. I am more than happy to look at it again once the issues have been addressed. — R ² 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David D'Or

I noticed your comment in the David D'Or GA review: You seem to have an enthusiastic group of 5 recent editors- correct? The fact is that three of them are the same person:

I have not yet reported it as sockpuppetry because there seems to be no evidence of vandalism or harassment and because I don't have the time to detail all the evidence, which at times is subtle. I am not the only person to have noticed it. See: User talk:68.173.101.114#User pages and User talk:Smerus#68.173.101.114.

I don't know if this affects your review or not, but wanted to let you know. Contributions/12.76.152.200 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I'm following along. thankx 4 the tip- saw yer comment on our Mr Cryptonym's user's page. I'd rather hoped he/they do get a chance to explain a few things. b/c it could affect my... understanding of the article, for all the usual puppet-y reasons. But I see Mr. E-E-6 has so many nominations in the fire, it's an abuse. This editor may be engaged in otheranti-social campaigns; I can now say David D'Or blatantly aggrandizes the subject. Yet I've stopped with the free advice 'til I can get some earnest response.... Budda, er,

uhm.. you seem fairly mysterious yerself. Whassup with *your* fortress-of-identity ? ฿^D} ... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

A second RfC has been started on sourcing for Eurovision articles, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. You are being notified as you are specifically mentioned on the list of events relating to the dispute at least once. The list is intended to be factual to help focus discussion, please point out any errors or omissions. You are free to participate in the debate if you wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

= Jonathan King =

You've noticed the damage to the article caused by Little Grape (the skin of which is colored... Purple)...

Germing (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Germing[reply]

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash talk page

I've replied to your first comment on my talk page, but it 1.30am here so I'm off to bed. I'll reply to your 2nd comment tomorrow. Blackash have a chat 15:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilarleo: You asked about Martin Hogbin at User talk:Blackash. Martin is just another editor with no real-world interest in the topic of topiary/tree shaping/arborsculpture, other than as a concerned onlooker who has tried to defend Wikipedia against strident POV editing. I learned about the Tree shaping issue at some noticeboard a long time ago, and I assume Martin did the same, but I think earlier than me. I think I recall Martin talking about mediation, but of course that will not be effective in the end. Thank you for taking the time to post your well stated and very helpful comments at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've now replied to your comments on my talk page, I did ramble on a bit. Though I did get around to answering your questions. Blackash have a chat 11:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Ring of Fire: An Indonesian Odyssey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ring of Fire (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) 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luminous paint, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chroma (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) 12:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal democracy

Hi. I've been trying to verify the content in formal democracy, an article you started, but I've been unable to find good sources for the material. There are a few blurbs here and there, but nothing to support the article as it now stands. I've even looked at the cited sources and found little to nothing. Before I nominate it for deletion, I was hoping you might take a look. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hilarleo. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hilarleo. 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)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User:Hilarleo|<font color="orange">Hilar</font><font color="red">leo</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Hilarleo|<b><sup><small><font color="orange">Hey,</font><font color="red">L.E.O.</font></small></sup></b>]]''

: Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

to

[[User:Hilarleo|<b style="color: orange;">Hilar</b><b style="color: red;">leo</b>]] ''[[User talk:Hilarleo|<sup><small><b style="color: orange;">Hey,</b><b style="color: red;">L.E.O.</b></small></sup>]]''

: Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature fix needed

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (Do not click the red "Restore all default settings" button, which will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Click the Learn more button next to the error to learn how to fix the error.
Update your signature to fix the error.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Solution 3: Do nothing:

In accordance with a recent request for comment, all invalid signatures will be changed to the default, which looks like "Example (talk)", one month from now.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]