Thanks for uploading File:Hunger Site.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
He's been warned before: [1] I think he is tolerated for the humor factor. Sort of a clueless court jester, who thinks he is here to advise, when in fact he is the ongoing butt of the joke. Please take his accusations with a grain of salt. 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.153.93.75 ( talk)
News flash: The checkuser investigation indeed found 4 other sockpuppets. None of them yourself, of course, as you were cleared. [2] Just thought you might like to know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with the post above, starting a new section) You still haven't made yourself conversant with the facts. Above you write
"someone like yourself out of the blue starts asking questions that sound suspicious in the context of the sockpuppet situation.
But I didn't ask any questions. Please look at this diff [3] I've posted it often enough. It is the single substantive post I made to the thread. Please look it at carefully. Have a look at 4 posts that were in the thread "Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior". That was my only substantive contribution to the thread. The checkuser case was brought on the basis of that post.I would genuinely like to know if you feel that posts merits a request for a checkuser.
After the checkuser request had been made, I effectively posted "what exactly is a checkuser" [4] and then "I'm happy to have a checkuser run [5]". -- MoreThings ( talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
For me, the best way forward would be to concentrate on the content. Both Montana and Buttermilk clearly care deeply about the article and they're both knowledgeable, committed, energetic editors. They got off on the wrong foot, and they're coming at the article from somewhat different angles, but I don't feel their positions are irreconcilable.
I apologize for reading too much into your comments on Saturday, and for causing you undue distress. Upon re-reading this morning, your comments appear to be entirely innocent. You were caught in the crossfire of a range war initiated by the user ItsLassieTime, who, along with its 5 known sockpuppets, has been blocked from editing. I hope that you will find your future work here much more enjoyable than this past weekend had been. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoreThings, I see the Buttermilk check is coming to a close with several socks discovered, none of which are you! I owe you an apology for having included your name in the list. I hope you understand that it was only because yours was a new account commenting on other new accounts suspected of socking. I also hope it didn't cause you any distress. Best, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoreThings,
In the wake of the sockpuppet block of Buttermilk1950, I have restored the Rodeo article to the last "clean" version, which reflected my last good faith attempt at consensus and tried to incorporate some of the positive changes that had been made. Unfortunately, that was March 29, and I know that you made a number of suggestions and good faith attempts to become involved with the article after that date. So, could you be so kind as to look at the version that is up now? Feel free to add back in changes that you think will improve the article, though if they will be major, it would be helpful to chat about them a bit first. I took a pretty hard hit on this article (two ANI reports, among other things) and want to emphasize that I am NOT the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet that has been portrayed. Montanabw (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on the article and it seems OK to me. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks - Josette ( talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hunger Site.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to make that post-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, MoreThings. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. -- Årvasbåo ( talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For you note encouraging me to stick around. I have come back in no small part because of notes like yours. I hope you are doing well and that we will see each other around more. Happy editing. Tiamut talk 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
For future reference: section headings (level-2, level-3 etc) should not be used in peer reviews as this disturbs the page organisation. I've fixed this on Larkin. Thanks, Brianboulton ( talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xan dar 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MoreThings!
You [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ANancyHeise&action=historysubmit&diff=350997065&oldid=350993707 recently questioned] why NancyHeise's use of prayer was a matter of concern, and I don't think your question was adequately answered. While I cannot speak for other editors, I believe that there is a perception that NancyHeise turns to prayer in place of addressing concerns about her editing made by other editors. Her [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FNancyHeise&action=historysubmit&diff=322392638&oldid=322381579 response] at the RfC concerning her editing is an earlier example of this. I'm sympathetic to her position, because surely divine authority overrules the flawed behavior of human editors. However, Wikipedia cannot operate on the basis of divine authority. To joke, even Jimbo's authority is subject to question. :-)
I hope this is helpful. Best wishes, Geometry guy 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the extended comments at peer review. What's your overall sense of the article now? G.W. ( Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a growing list of people who have expressed their dissatisfaction with the new version of the page and the way it was installed. I'm counting 10 editors so far but maybe there's more if I go back to see those who opposed the one day poll including the anonymous editor they deleted. I suspect it was a long time editor because there was some discussion about text being removed because it would have outed that editor. I asked Sunray to help with the RFC and he has agreed to help me with a neutral introductory note and oversee the discussion. He is really a very highly skilled mediator and we are very fortunate to have his help. You proposed wording for that note previously and I was wondering if you would keep going and give me an entire note to work with. I might add or detract from it or I might keep the whole thing. Are you interested? NancyHeise talk 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
MT, what your format has done is created a threaded discussion on the RFC, which shouldn't be done per the instructions. I see you weren't happy with my fix, but it still needs to be adjusted somehow. Threaded discussions belong on talk pages; RFCs are kept in order by having only statements and endorsements.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
11:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Lane Fox, 453–54
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bob1960evens ( talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, If you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please list them etc. Bishonen | talk 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. See this comment. Paul B ( talk) 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For your statement in the SAQ arbitration case. Honorable mention also for your outstanding use of Mark Twain on your user page. Keep it up! Revcasy ( talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
Cool. Thank you, Revcasy. All I need now is barn, and I'm sorted :)
MoreThings (
talk)
20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Your persistent attacks against Bishonen (most recently on User talk:Newyorkbrad) have really crossed a line. You were warned rather clearly, and have persisted. I am blocking you for a period of 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MoreThings. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi MoreThings,
I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [11]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
To avoid problems , did you send in the OTRS paperwork per WP:COPYREQ? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:700 Holderness House Hull.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (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)
14:04, 24 November 2015 (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)
14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hunger Site.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
He's been warned before: [1] I think he is tolerated for the humor factor. Sort of a clueless court jester, who thinks he is here to advise, when in fact he is the ongoing butt of the joke. Please take his accusations with a grain of salt. 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.153.93.75 ( talk)
News flash: The checkuser investigation indeed found 4 other sockpuppets. None of them yourself, of course, as you were cleared. [2] Just thought you might like to know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with the post above, starting a new section) You still haven't made yourself conversant with the facts. Above you write
"someone like yourself out of the blue starts asking questions that sound suspicious in the context of the sockpuppet situation.
But I didn't ask any questions. Please look at this diff [3] I've posted it often enough. It is the single substantive post I made to the thread. Please look it at carefully. Have a look at 4 posts that were in the thread "Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior". That was my only substantive contribution to the thread. The checkuser case was brought on the basis of that post.I would genuinely like to know if you feel that posts merits a request for a checkuser.
After the checkuser request had been made, I effectively posted "what exactly is a checkuser" [4] and then "I'm happy to have a checkuser run [5]". -- MoreThings ( talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
For me, the best way forward would be to concentrate on the content. Both Montana and Buttermilk clearly care deeply about the article and they're both knowledgeable, committed, energetic editors. They got off on the wrong foot, and they're coming at the article from somewhat different angles, but I don't feel their positions are irreconcilable.
I apologize for reading too much into your comments on Saturday, and for causing you undue distress. Upon re-reading this morning, your comments appear to be entirely innocent. You were caught in the crossfire of a range war initiated by the user ItsLassieTime, who, along with its 5 known sockpuppets, has been blocked from editing. I hope that you will find your future work here much more enjoyable than this past weekend had been. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoreThings, I see the Buttermilk check is coming to a close with several socks discovered, none of which are you! I owe you an apology for having included your name in the list. I hope you understand that it was only because yours was a new account commenting on other new accounts suspected of socking. I also hope it didn't cause you any distress. Best, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoreThings,
In the wake of the sockpuppet block of Buttermilk1950, I have restored the Rodeo article to the last "clean" version, which reflected my last good faith attempt at consensus and tried to incorporate some of the positive changes that had been made. Unfortunately, that was March 29, and I know that you made a number of suggestions and good faith attempts to become involved with the article after that date. So, could you be so kind as to look at the version that is up now? Feel free to add back in changes that you think will improve the article, though if they will be major, it would be helpful to chat about them a bit first. I took a pretty hard hit on this article (two ANI reports, among other things) and want to emphasize that I am NOT the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet that has been portrayed. Montanabw (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on the article and it seems OK to me. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks - Josette ( talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hunger Site.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to make that post-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, MoreThings. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. -- Årvasbåo ( talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For you note encouraging me to stick around. I have come back in no small part because of notes like yours. I hope you are doing well and that we will see each other around more. Happy editing. Tiamut talk 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
For future reference: section headings (level-2, level-3 etc) should not be used in peer reviews as this disturbs the page organisation. I've fixed this on Larkin. Thanks, Brianboulton ( talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xan dar 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MoreThings!
You [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ANancyHeise&action=historysubmit&diff=350997065&oldid=350993707 recently questioned] why NancyHeise's use of prayer was a matter of concern, and I don't think your question was adequately answered. While I cannot speak for other editors, I believe that there is a perception that NancyHeise turns to prayer in place of addressing concerns about her editing made by other editors. Her [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FNancyHeise&action=historysubmit&diff=322392638&oldid=322381579 response] at the RfC concerning her editing is an earlier example of this. I'm sympathetic to her position, because surely divine authority overrules the flawed behavior of human editors. However, Wikipedia cannot operate on the basis of divine authority. To joke, even Jimbo's authority is subject to question. :-)
I hope this is helpful. Best wishes, Geometry guy 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the extended comments at peer review. What's your overall sense of the article now? G.W. ( Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a growing list of people who have expressed their dissatisfaction with the new version of the page and the way it was installed. I'm counting 10 editors so far but maybe there's more if I go back to see those who opposed the one day poll including the anonymous editor they deleted. I suspect it was a long time editor because there was some discussion about text being removed because it would have outed that editor. I asked Sunray to help with the RFC and he has agreed to help me with a neutral introductory note and oversee the discussion. He is really a very highly skilled mediator and we are very fortunate to have his help. You proposed wording for that note previously and I was wondering if you would keep going and give me an entire note to work with. I might add or detract from it or I might keep the whole thing. Are you interested? NancyHeise talk 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
MT, what your format has done is created a threaded discussion on the RFC, which shouldn't be done per the instructions. I see you weren't happy with my fix, but it still needs to be adjusted somehow. Threaded discussions belong on talk pages; RFCs are kept in order by having only statements and endorsements.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
11:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Lane Fox, 453–54
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bob1960evens ( talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, If you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please list them etc. Bishonen | talk 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. See this comment. Paul B ( talk) 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For your statement in the SAQ arbitration case. Honorable mention also for your outstanding use of Mark Twain on your user page. Keep it up! Revcasy ( talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
Cool. Thank you, Revcasy. All I need now is barn, and I'm sorted :)
MoreThings (
talk)
20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Your persistent attacks against Bishonen (most recently on User talk:Newyorkbrad) have really crossed a line. You were warned rather clearly, and have persisted. I am blocking you for a period of 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MoreThings. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi MoreThings,
I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [11]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
To avoid problems , did you send in the OTRS paperwork per WP:COPYREQ? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:700 Holderness House Hull.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (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)
14:04, 24 November 2015 (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)
14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)