I know it's been close to 2 years since you posted the chart to the almah article, but I'm really interested where you got it. I would like to investigate it within my thesis and, obviously, I cannot attribute wikipedia!
If you could possible e-mail me at [email protected], it would be much appreciated!!
You are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time for you and your family. Hang in there. Feel free to erase this very personal comment from your talk page. --Robbie Giles 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed those comments per WP:TPG. We are trying to minimize irrelevant discussion on that page. I will leave them and hope some one else notices that the question posed is not about the article but about igniting conversation that belongs on user talk page or forum. Brusegadi 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since RA reverted this revert before I could, I'll comment this way. You might want to reread WP:TPG, especially WP:TPG#Others.27_comments. "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is explicitely listed as acceptable. --Stephan Schulz 02:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep deleting well referenced Bushisms, with the edit summary "not a bushism"? If you disagree on the merits of a specific quote whether it should be included in the Bushism article, please use the Talk:Bushism page to explain why you think it is not a bushism. The way you are currently going about it, you are trying to impose your point of view. --However whatever 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it does not matter if they are well referenced if they are not good examples, and some of them are not well referenced either. If you think something should be added to the page, please use the Talk:Bushism page to explain why you think it is a bushism. The way you are currently going about it, you are trying to impose your point of view.--Blue Tie 03:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not good examples" is your POV. You must justify why they are "not good examples". Also, your "YouTube is not a good reference" edit summaries is not credible. There is no better reference than the actual video. --However whatever 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is not a single word in WP:RS saying that YouTube is not a reliable source. --However whatever 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Good examples" is your POV. You must justify why they are "good examples". Per WP:PROVEIT if you are seeking to add something you must prove it.
Here is the wikipedia quote on YouTube as a source: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." So, do not use Youtube if you can help it. Since there are already ample examples of real Bushisms, it is not necessary to use Youtube as an example -- when the examples do not fit the definitions put forth in the article and one of the examples may be edited just as wikipedia fears. --Blue Tie 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to expand on your decision to delete the Columbia endowment reference in Duncan Hunter's article? He is talking about cutting their federal funding and the reference describes their current financial status which would be affected if the funding is cut. I fail to see how it isn't relevant. I'll see if you respond otherwise I'll put the quote back in as it is relevant. Bluefield 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Duncan Hunter. It is not about Columbia's endowment. An action on his part is reasonable in an article about Duncan Hunter. A discussion about a third entity is irrelevant to the article on Duncan Hunter. Specifically Columbia's endowment is irrelevant to the Duncan Hunter article. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to put in Columbia's article. You should note that Gamaliel (I think) also considered it irrelevant. --Blue Tie 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Malkin is a highly ideological commentator, not a journalist. I'd really feel much more comfortable if we got some kind of independent verification that this incident even happened. --Orange Mike 16:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't re-add comments from blocked users [1]. If you like the comment and want to add the substance of it yourself, of course, then you may do so William M. Connolley 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. I see. He's blocked not just Banned. Ok. But the comment on the talk page is harmless after all. --Blue Tie 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re 2 most recent installments serializing MMM[edit]
Bardwin claims he might work on the generic MMM, Main Article [Gale's redraft from over half a year ago that I'd posted on the talkpage] so it can be augmented and ajusted and brought into better focus as a summary.
Dear RfA friend, I will learn, chaos will fade Thanks so much ... A. B.
This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel
Blue Tie, what can I say? Of all the comments in my RfA, yours meant the world to me. Thank you so very much. --A. B.(talk) 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Thank you. At first I was just going to vote against him, it doesn't appear like enough experience yet, but as I went to the next candidate, the questions came to me, so I figured I'd at least give him a fair shake to answer the questions before I 'officially' made up my mind. Since I've seen your name on many other candidates pages as well, I can assume that you know I've asked the same questions of all the candidates. To me right now, those are the most pressing issues, though later in the year it could very well change. wbfergusTalk 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please recommend changes to satisfy your concerns about errors of fact and unbalanced perspective Blue Tie. I would like to win your support for this change. As you say it is better than current lead. We can work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Please note some of the concerns that I have expressed on the talk page regarding the whole article. I do not think we should be so focused on the lead as on fixing the whole article first then let the lead be a summary. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Blue Tie. I will look at your discussion and make some changes to my lead to satisfy your concerns. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you mention to Royalguard you were going to ANI. Please do so--the more eyes the better, and I look forward to that. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for noticing; I added a comment at the ANI and will return to this discussion on the 27th, God willing. I can't take this and Christmas together. I hope you both have a happy holiday! htom (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy the last couple days with Christmas related things, and I'm not at anyone's beck and call. I do things in the order I get asked and hadn't seen your request until now. You can always use WP:RFPP to request unprotection of an article too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Tie, there is a new lead that has just been proposed last night byShibumi2 and you are invited to express support or opposition to the proposed lead. Kindest regards -- 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You asked what an SPA was, I don't want to clutter up Talk:Waterboarding any more, but it stands for Single Purpose Account, someone who almost exclusively edits a single article rather than the wide variety of topics most committed wikipedia editors are active in. See WP:SPA for more details. henrik•talk 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Apparently I don't get around much!--Blue Tie (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing waterboarding to our attention. However, it seems that the page in question is currently protected from editing, due to an ongoing conflict, edit warring, or persistent vandalism. The Neutrality Project is not a dispute resolution commitee, nor an informal mediation process. As such, it does not wish to become involved in articles which are unde rthe imminent threat of escalating or being subject to dispute resolution. If this article become stable in the future, please feel free to bring it to our attention again.Jame§ugrono 11:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I realise that you do have quite an interesting dilemma here. I've made comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessugrono (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I say overwhelming majority, generally, I would mean to almost all. For example, an overwhelming majority of people believe that the earth revolves around the sun. Jame§ugrono 06:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. Though as you can see from the comments at my RfA, being someone who "knows something" is actually not as much of an asset on Wikipedia as you might think! It's been a definite puzzle to solve, to figure out how I can best help on Wikipedia, without actually working on subjects where I'm a closely-involved expert! LOL! :) --Elonka 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved administrators are going to deal with waterboarding. It may be unprotected at some point. All parties should be very careful not to get involved in edit warring. If somebody does a POV push, editors may normally revert once, using a civil edit summary. It is a good idea to explain the revert on the talk page and to seek consensus. I strongly recommend not reverting more than once. Feel free to pass the word around that civility and decorum must be maintained. My intention is to help keep editors out of trouble. JehochmanTalk 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has been unprotected for a few days. A new consensus approach has been suggested by a number of previously uninvolved editors. I try to be civil all the time. If I have failed let me know so I can apologize. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will check it out ASAP. Unfortunately, I am in a crunch situation at work. So it will be a while. Maybe tonight. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts at the consensus page. You might look at wp:Policies and guidelines too, and even Five pillars. I'm probably getting too grouchy, but it's good to see a calm and even hand getting interested in seeing some stability in our policy pages. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my piece on the Ahmadinejad page. Of course I cannot place a source, but I remember the details of the speech in which he made the statement. You know that not every single item can be back up by a source, so are you suggesting that the Iranian premier meant to wipe out the populaton of the country? Evlekis (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on wikipedia, if challenged, must be sourced. If it cannot be sourced, it cannot remain. This is especially true for living people.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented evidence that Neutral Good == Shibumi2. See this section. I do not think checkuser will be able to confirm this, because the person may be driving from work to home, using two IPs. It is also possible that they are using a mobile device or cellular networking card in a laptop.
I appreciate the even-handedness of your approach to this case. JehochmanTalk 07:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your evidence. I think that, by itself, it is not probative. I was going to analyze it but... suppose that my edits did not overlap with someone elses.. would I be that person? Hard to believe that could be true. And I think someone pointed out that the two of them edited two different articles at exactly the same time at some point... didn't they? I have to admit, I am not very excited about searching out sockpuppets. I say.. just focus on behavior and block offenders. For example, maybe they are the same, but if Shibumi2 obeys the rules and Neutral Good is disruptive, let Shibumi2 stay and NG go.
HSIMHAROYP. That means something that I may say later. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overlapping edits are a way to disprove sock puppetry. (A few overlaps is possible if the user runs two computers, or two web browsers on one computer, but it is very hard to generate a large number of overlaps.) The negative correlation between these two accounts is highly improbable. If I go back another month, the probability will drop even further.
Sock puppetry is an advanced disruption tactic. When found, one account will be blocked indefinitely, and the other will be blocked for a while, possibly indefinitely. Shibumi2 received a second chance already. Using two accounts peacefully gives that person an unfair advantage in driving consensus. JehochmanTalk 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your logic on overlapping edits. I think someone actually saw them edit two different articles at the same time. Maybe Im getting two other people mixed up. Unfortunately, consensus is headcounting not logic evaluation, so you may be right. But consensus shouldnt be head counting and if it weren't sock puppets would have no power. The truth is that sockpuppets show the weakness in wikipedia's "consensus" system. Oh well.--Blue Tie (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We continue to strive for improvement. If you know of any instance where they edited before and after each other in close proximity, let me know. We are looking for edit patterns like NG, S2, NG or S2, NG, S2 with short intervals. They don't have to be at exactly the same time. JehochmanTalk 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any easy way to upload a spreadsheet directly to WP, however, if you install openoffice and load your spreadsheet with that, then do File->Export as PDF, you will get a standard PDF file which you can upload to any free webhost and link to from WP. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I doubt anyone would be interested in a PDF of a spreadsheet, except to determine that I actually did the work I am claiming. But thanks for that idea. I will look into it.
Also, I appreciate your reasoned editing approach.--Blue Tie (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might make your life easier: [3]. Lawrence § t/e 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I actually knew about that, but I also read every post and I reviewed their intent. I created a database of the edits -- including the original dates and comments but also whether the edit was a revert and other data. I am going to be finishing my evidence ASAP but I am terribly sick with a cold and its killing me.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).
Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Waterboarding article's ArbCom proceeding has been ended without resolving the content dispute. Please contribute constructively on the Talk page. I have proposed removing six words from the lead sentence, and I have also suggested mediation. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that posting a lengthy diatribe on a talk page and going off and making edits without waiting for responses does not constitute "discussion." The language you are attempting to edit has been the result of a long-standing consensus among editors of this page over the past few months, and your apparent willingness to start an edit war to insert your POV without waiting for discussion just might result in a block against you (if it doesn't result in full-protection of the page, which I haven't hesitated to request several times already). Mike Doughney (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the EU and Eurozone from the List of countries by GDP (PPP). Currently there is consensus that the EU should be included in the lists because it appears in the sources and because it is a supranational entity that has country-like characteristics. This is what the lead explains. Before removing it again, please discuss on the talk page. Yours, --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm exhausted by it, but anyway... In the RfC you recently added a para/statement starting "Suppose this article were renamed "Scientific Organization's Statements on Global Warming"" - I'd like to discuss this a bit, but we involved editors (you voted in the straw polls, no escaping now, sorry) should not be getting into discussion in the RfC thread. Could I sugest you start a new section for this, or move it into one of the earlier 'how about this name' threads? If you do, might be good to leave behind those bits (or new bits) that will be of use to uninvolved RfC editors to know where you're coming from (while I mostly disagree with it, I think the 'title issue' deserves some coverage there). Regards, ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blue Tie. You have new messages at K10wnsta's talk page. Message added (I posted this here as it seemed a relevant section). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Last June, you changed this article from “arrived home driving his SUV approximately 8 AM Monday”, to “arrived home driving his motor home approximately 8 AM Monday”.
No. It was correct before. You are thinking of the Saturday, when he arrived home twice driving his motor home, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. He supposedly had Danielle with him on both occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth-2009 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I stand corrected but the return of the motor home an hour earlier should be mentioned.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two books which discuss this case, available on Amazon.com. The first, “A Question of Murder” by Wecht and Kaufmann, has a short chapter on the case, but it contains factual errors (as can be seen from the customer reviews). The second, “Rush to Judgement” by Stevenson, is more reliable.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Talk:Lisa Nowak/archive news March 7 2007, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
G12 - Copyright notice clearly displayed at the top of the pasted article
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Safiel (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that aliases probably shouldn't be used in the article. Unfortunately a lack of available spare time has stymied opportunities to fully look after the article. --Roisterer (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Alexf(talk) 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blue Tie,
I'd like to see the info about Groat conflict of interest added rather than the study deleted. I just didn't have time to do it, plus I unsuccessfully tried to insert that info in several months ago, so I thought I'd let someone else do it this time. Please hear me out. Bottom line first. A lot of legitimate news sources touted the UT study as proving fracking was safe. They are still out there, all over the place, and don't include information about the conflict of interest. Rather than omit the study from WP, it would be to include the study and criticisms of it (including Groat's COI), so readers will be aware of them. It puts all of the information in one place for readers.
If you go back in the history of the article you'll see the history of the debate on the Groat study. Shortly after the study was published, concerns were raised about Groat's objectivity, but there wasn't an RS that raised concerns clearly enough, so that info didn't stick. There was some edit warring on that issue. If you look at the description of the study in the WP article, it already points out the spinning of the results, how the injection was artificially separated from the rest of the process. I think the information about Groat's conflicts of interest (and those of the review board as well!) should be added, rather than deleting the information about the study. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'm not sure what bad sources you are talking about, but will check. My contributions were based on the study's actual report. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you are talking about. The study actually DID say those things, but the researchers separated the injection process (which they called "fracking") out from the other processes and consequences, and claimed that because that piece wasn't shown, by itself, to cause any negative consequences, fracking was safe. That is what the Press ran with. They ignored the role of radioactive tracers or that you can't have the injection phase without the other aspects of the process. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is the irony too. The spin was the only thing consistent with Groat's COI. The actual results of the study were pretty damning. UT, Groat, and the Press promoted the spin as "Fracking is safe!" Few read/heard the rest of the story, unless they read the actual study...or WP. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faithless elector, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Adlai Stevenson. 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) 09:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blue Tie. 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.
Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's ... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blue Tie. 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.
Hello, Blue Tie. 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.
