I don't enjoy being threatened. You don't have a monopoly over this article, and neither do I. You are welcome to add sourced information that improves it, but don't think you can blanket revert my edits. If you have an interest in improving things, then please let's do it together, preferably without the nasty tone. -- Gilabrand ( talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not threaten you, I gave you a warning (i copied and pasted the standard one in fact) - as is required when reporting a user who violates the 3RR. I am more than happy to try and make additions, but every time i have you have reverted them without discussion, to a page that reads like it was lifted directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Can't it be both an Israeli Settlement and a neighborhood? Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If I found the term "personally offensive" then I wouldn't have made clear that that is what East Jerusalem is often called, but saying that it being a neighborhood is exclusive to the Israeli government is fiction. Whether or not someplace is a settlement doesn't stop it from being a city or village, and in this case a naighborhood, and pretending that it does simply conflicts with reality. --Robert Robertert ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I never said it was exclusive - what i meant is that the view is pretty limited when compared to the view that it is a Settlement. That said, however, I do not disagree that being a settlement stops it from being city or village, or even neighborhood - on the contrary, i agree completely, but it works both ways. Being a neighborhood does not stop it from being a Settlement. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
G'day, first of all thanks for protecting the Gilo article. I just noticed however, there is a small error with one of the citations (number 4) i think that is giving a citation error if you would be able to fix that up sometime or possibly point me in the right direction for these sort of requests. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You say "You use (and lead with) the disputed term neighborhood without any mention of the dispute over it". What dispute over the term? You keep referring me to UN documents that that "you" interpret as making the term neighborhood disputed, while at the same time your own sources have no problem using the term. If it was disputed, Saeb Erekat, ARIJ and Peace Now would be the last people to use it. -- Robertert ( talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know they call them settlements, and they also call them neighborhoods, meaning that they do not believe that "neighborhood" is a disputed or incorrect term. The UN doesn't say that either, just you. -- Robertert ( talk) 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The most important thing is to discuss and to try to minimize reverts. Further revert wars may result in revert restrictions being imposed. Thx. El_C 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please refer to this notice. Thanks. Regards, El_C 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note you violated 3RR on the Jerusalem neighborhood articles. If you don't self revert, you risk getting banned. Amoruso ( talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Pisgat Ze'ev. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. I wouldn't recommend you take
WP:IAR too literally on this one as you're going to get yourself blocked if you keep reverting — not everyone is going to agree that the rule is preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
Stifle (
talk)
10:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, Colour. You might be interested in the little report that I filed here, based on this. Regards, Huldra ( talk) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Colourinthemeaning. Because the dispute is over this point, I am not going to change it until the dispute is resolved. Administrators are neutral, and the tag makes it clear that the current version is in no way and endorsement of the "right" version. When there is a resolution, hopefully soon given the nature of the page, the version will be changed and the page will be unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did I remove that sentence? Because it is loaded and unsourced. Israel, which governs Jerusalem, treats it as any other neighborhood of the city. (Secondly, if it "widely considered" any Israeli settlement, then why aren't their reputable sources (not from think tanks or that sort) who call it that? The source would have to identify that neighborhood specifically as an Israeli settlement. Without that, it certainly cannot be worded that way and that description certainly does not belong in the introduction. I have just read in the last 24 hours articles from CNN and the New York Times that refer to either this or Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as just that. I cannot assume anything else. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind discussing this issue, but I flatly refuse to be bothered with nonsense. I already reminded you about the WP:NOR issue. To review the sources you gave me: Haaretz is a good source, however, your citation is of an op-ed not an article. Haaretz is very consistent with using "neighborhood" in their articles. Dont try to mislead me. One MSNBC page is of a picture, which does not weigh that much in comparison to the text of an article. In text, neighborhood is usually used. In addition, the other citation of MSNBC (which is actually an AP piece) does NOT refer to a single place as a settlement. Even they explicitly refer to Har Homa as a neighborhood.
The Guardian aligns itself with the political left.
Xinhua does not refer to Pisgat Zeev or Har Homa as settlements.
Still, as a whole, the entire collection of news sources is shadowed by the other collection that uses "neighborhood". I am not looking at opinion article written by a leftist organization (FAIR). I consider that an insult to my intelligence. I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and understand that something like that is not taken at face-value. IF a position like that were to be included (and Im not saying it should be), then it must be written as the opinion of that group.
A statement by CNN, aiming to be factual and objective, clearly states in a statement not to refer to it as a "settlement." In regards to the UNWRA, that's okay when mentioned as the position of the UNWRA. That's fine. However, in such articles, it would be better to cite the UN itself or another arm. I can gladly do that. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Its not looking to good with the largest U.S. paper in circulation, the USA Today. [32] [33] [34] These other ones are AP stories, although some of them are by AP writers writing for USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-18-1397760935_x.htm] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
You recently submitted a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crum375. A clerk has moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please provide diff evidence to demonstrate the alleged 3RR violation, and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. Chenzw Talk 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk
Goodonya, as PAdams'd say, but we'd all better just stick to our own wickets, which, all the same, often turns out, happily, to be a matter of batting on the same turf. A bloke does get the feeling at times of being a nunty codger chucking donkey drops at codswallop, rather than, as in fantasies, being the Don that cracks full tosses (as in 'tossing off', of course) to the boundary! Cheers mate. Nishidani ( talk) 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to thank you for your efforts at the Neighborhoods of the Ring entry. What a pain in the arse, monitoring that! What we really need is a right-wing wikipedia entry and a left-wing one, parallel on the page for each topic! If only that wouldn't just promote more 'extremism.' At any rate, I've been suffering from a certain editor recently (she really made me lose it today) and wanted to send out my support. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, you accidentally created the deletion discussion in the wrong place: you're meant to create the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpage, when you created on the article itself. It's now fixed, but if you want to continue participating in the discussion you can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam J. Yeend. Cheers! AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Settlements, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Settlements and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Settlements during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼ 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help (if it indeed did, only time will tell:). Happy editing! Tiamut talk 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
you need to start showing sources that show that neighborhood is POV. sources that show that settlement in that context is pov are plentiful. therefore it will NOT be ever in that leading sentence. so give up. read npov and understand. you are in danger of being seriously reprimanded by wikipedia community if u continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 ( talk) 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Colourinthemeaning! I have noticed that you have been replacing all instances of 'neighborhood' in Jerusalem-related articles to 'settlement'. There was already consensus not to do this per the centralized discussion which you recently edited, and if you want to really restart it, it would be good form to inform the relevant WikiProjects and/or post an RfC about it. Moreover, as I'm sure you're aware, there's a high-profile Arbitration case going on right now which is related to similar edits to Judea and Samaria-related articles, with editors who edit-warred by adding/removing certain terms facing the possibility of serious sanctions. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
You have already been warned in the past, I see, about Jerusalem-related article disruption. You have recently been mass reverting edits with no proper explanation, or providing an explanation for 1 minor detail (which I will add was correct), but in fact hiding behind the explanation an entire reversion of plenty of sourced information. I am talking about
[46]this edit. This is unacceptable and I urge you to contribute positively to Wikipedia, otherwise I will be forced to report you to an admin who will take appropriate action if you continue editing in this manner. Thank you,
Breein1007 (
talk)
17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
To which User:Breein1007 responded:
To which I, User:Colourinthemeaning replied (found here: [51]): You of course you have the right to remove content from your talk page, I was just wondering if you would be comfortable with me doing the same? Personally, I don't remember ever having removed content from my talk page as I don't feel I have anything to hide. I am not about to start, but I do plan to provide links to the various ensuing discussions on my talk page. I am wondering though on what basis you consider it 'nonsense,' I am at least willing to keep mine there because it is someone else's opinion. On what basis are your warning well founded, while mine have no place? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Which User:Breein1007 responded here to:
→ in re: the following third opinion request ( diff): → (see also: Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute)
# Jerusalem and Talk:Jerusalem: This article seems nationalist and the lead blindly represents the Israeli Government's POV when burried in Footnote 3, you will find that it is a disputed capital and claimed by two different states (one yes, with limited recognition). Please see the edits/reverts here: [52] and if you can provide a third opinion. Cheers. 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:3O is for small disagreements which have first been discussed between (usually) two editors. That's not the case here: hard-won consensus is documented in previous lengthy discussions in the archives (including Talk:Jerusalem/capital) which are linked on the talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't enjoy being threatened. You don't have a monopoly over this article, and neither do I. You are welcome to add sourced information that improves it, but don't think you can blanket revert my edits. If you have an interest in improving things, then please let's do it together, preferably without the nasty tone. -- Gilabrand ( talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not threaten you, I gave you a warning (i copied and pasted the standard one in fact) - as is required when reporting a user who violates the 3RR. I am more than happy to try and make additions, but every time i have you have reverted them without discussion, to a page that reads like it was lifted directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Can't it be both an Israeli Settlement and a neighborhood? Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If I found the term "personally offensive" then I wouldn't have made clear that that is what East Jerusalem is often called, but saying that it being a neighborhood is exclusive to the Israeli government is fiction. Whether or not someplace is a settlement doesn't stop it from being a city or village, and in this case a naighborhood, and pretending that it does simply conflicts with reality. --Robert Robertert ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I never said it was exclusive - what i meant is that the view is pretty limited when compared to the view that it is a Settlement. That said, however, I do not disagree that being a settlement stops it from being city or village, or even neighborhood - on the contrary, i agree completely, but it works both ways. Being a neighborhood does not stop it from being a Settlement. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
G'day, first of all thanks for protecting the Gilo article. I just noticed however, there is a small error with one of the citations (number 4) i think that is giving a citation error if you would be able to fix that up sometime or possibly point me in the right direction for these sort of requests. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You say "You use (and lead with) the disputed term neighborhood without any mention of the dispute over it". What dispute over the term? You keep referring me to UN documents that that "you" interpret as making the term neighborhood disputed, while at the same time your own sources have no problem using the term. If it was disputed, Saeb Erekat, ARIJ and Peace Now would be the last people to use it. -- Robertert ( talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know they call them settlements, and they also call them neighborhoods, meaning that they do not believe that "neighborhood" is a disputed or incorrect term. The UN doesn't say that either, just you. -- Robertert ( talk) 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The most important thing is to discuss and to try to minimize reverts. Further revert wars may result in revert restrictions being imposed. Thx. El_C 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please refer to this notice. Thanks. Regards, El_C 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note you violated 3RR on the Jerusalem neighborhood articles. If you don't self revert, you risk getting banned. Amoruso ( talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Pisgat Ze'ev. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. I wouldn't recommend you take
WP:IAR too literally on this one as you're going to get yourself blocked if you keep reverting — not everyone is going to agree that the rule is preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
Stifle (
talk)
10:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, Colour. You might be interested in the little report that I filed here, based on this. Regards, Huldra ( talk) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Colourinthemeaning. Because the dispute is over this point, I am not going to change it until the dispute is resolved. Administrators are neutral, and the tag makes it clear that the current version is in no way and endorsement of the "right" version. When there is a resolution, hopefully soon given the nature of the page, the version will be changed and the page will be unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did I remove that sentence? Because it is loaded and unsourced. Israel, which governs Jerusalem, treats it as any other neighborhood of the city. (Secondly, if it "widely considered" any Israeli settlement, then why aren't their reputable sources (not from think tanks or that sort) who call it that? The source would have to identify that neighborhood specifically as an Israeli settlement. Without that, it certainly cannot be worded that way and that description certainly does not belong in the introduction. I have just read in the last 24 hours articles from CNN and the New York Times that refer to either this or Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as just that. I cannot assume anything else. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind discussing this issue, but I flatly refuse to be bothered with nonsense. I already reminded you about the WP:NOR issue. To review the sources you gave me: Haaretz is a good source, however, your citation is of an op-ed not an article. Haaretz is very consistent with using "neighborhood" in their articles. Dont try to mislead me. One MSNBC page is of a picture, which does not weigh that much in comparison to the text of an article. In text, neighborhood is usually used. In addition, the other citation of MSNBC (which is actually an AP piece) does NOT refer to a single place as a settlement. Even they explicitly refer to Har Homa as a neighborhood.
The Guardian aligns itself with the political left.
Xinhua does not refer to Pisgat Zeev or Har Homa as settlements.
Still, as a whole, the entire collection of news sources is shadowed by the other collection that uses "neighborhood". I am not looking at opinion article written by a leftist organization (FAIR). I consider that an insult to my intelligence. I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and understand that something like that is not taken at face-value. IF a position like that were to be included (and Im not saying it should be), then it must be written as the opinion of that group.
A statement by CNN, aiming to be factual and objective, clearly states in a statement not to refer to it as a "settlement." In regards to the UNWRA, that's okay when mentioned as the position of the UNWRA. That's fine. However, in such articles, it would be better to cite the UN itself or another arm. I can gladly do that. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Its not looking to good with the largest U.S. paper in circulation, the USA Today. [32] [33] [34] These other ones are AP stories, although some of them are by AP writers writing for USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-18-1397760935_x.htm] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
You recently submitted a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crum375. A clerk has moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please provide diff evidence to demonstrate the alleged 3RR violation, and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. Chenzw Talk 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk
Goodonya, as PAdams'd say, but we'd all better just stick to our own wickets, which, all the same, often turns out, happily, to be a matter of batting on the same turf. A bloke does get the feeling at times of being a nunty codger chucking donkey drops at codswallop, rather than, as in fantasies, being the Don that cracks full tosses (as in 'tossing off', of course) to the boundary! Cheers mate. Nishidani ( talk) 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to thank you for your efforts at the Neighborhoods of the Ring entry. What a pain in the arse, monitoring that! What we really need is a right-wing wikipedia entry and a left-wing one, parallel on the page for each topic! If only that wouldn't just promote more 'extremism.' At any rate, I've been suffering from a certain editor recently (she really made me lose it today) and wanted to send out my support. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, you accidentally created the deletion discussion in the wrong place: you're meant to create the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpage, when you created on the article itself. It's now fixed, but if you want to continue participating in the discussion you can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam J. Yeend. Cheers! AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Settlements, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Settlements and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Settlements during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼ 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help (if it indeed did, only time will tell:). Happy editing! Tiamut talk 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
you need to start showing sources that show that neighborhood is POV. sources that show that settlement in that context is pov are plentiful. therefore it will NOT be ever in that leading sentence. so give up. read npov and understand. you are in danger of being seriously reprimanded by wikipedia community if u continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 ( talk) 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Colourinthemeaning! I have noticed that you have been replacing all instances of 'neighborhood' in Jerusalem-related articles to 'settlement'. There was already consensus not to do this per the centralized discussion which you recently edited, and if you want to really restart it, it would be good form to inform the relevant WikiProjects and/or post an RfC about it. Moreover, as I'm sure you're aware, there's a high-profile Arbitration case going on right now which is related to similar edits to Judea and Samaria-related articles, with editors who edit-warred by adding/removing certain terms facing the possibility of serious sanctions. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
You have already been warned in the past, I see, about Jerusalem-related article disruption. You have recently been mass reverting edits with no proper explanation, or providing an explanation for 1 minor detail (which I will add was correct), but in fact hiding behind the explanation an entire reversion of plenty of sourced information. I am talking about
[46]this edit. This is unacceptable and I urge you to contribute positively to Wikipedia, otherwise I will be forced to report you to an admin who will take appropriate action if you continue editing in this manner. Thank you,
Breein1007 (
talk)
17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
To which User:Breein1007 responded:
To which I, User:Colourinthemeaning replied (found here: [51]): You of course you have the right to remove content from your talk page, I was just wondering if you would be comfortable with me doing the same? Personally, I don't remember ever having removed content from my talk page as I don't feel I have anything to hide. I am not about to start, but I do plan to provide links to the various ensuing discussions on my talk page. I am wondering though on what basis you consider it 'nonsense,' I am at least willing to keep mine there because it is someone else's opinion. On what basis are your warning well founded, while mine have no place? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Which User:Breein1007 responded here to:
→ in re: the following third opinion request ( diff): → (see also: Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute)
# Jerusalem and Talk:Jerusalem: This article seems nationalist and the lead blindly represents the Israeli Government's POV when burried in Footnote 3, you will find that it is a disputed capital and claimed by two different states (one yes, with limited recognition). Please see the edits/reverts here: [52] and if you can provide a third opinion. Cheers. 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:3O is for small disagreements which have first been discussed between (usually) two editors. That's not the case here: hard-won consensus is documented in previous lengthy discussions in the archives (including Talk:Jerusalem/capital) which are linked on the talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)