![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello, Rotten regard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
SwisterTwister
talk
22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have undone your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) since it is really a closure that should be performed by an administrator. I'd suggest that you stick to content areas for a while before moving into the maintenance parts of the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed from your edits that you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. Have you edited under any other username before? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. — Kww( talk) 04:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Rotten regard ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't believe this is an "improper alternate account", as I've explained above in my reply to Hersfold. Rotten regard ( talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Blocked User:General announcement, making this no longer an "alternate" account. Please note that your behaviour at the AFD for Flat Bastion Road was highly problematic, and what drew all of this attention in the first place. Non-admin closes are only acceptable when the disposition of an AFD is completely uncontroversial, and the fact that your close was reverted means that it couldn't possibly have been uncontroversial. Don't repeat behaviour like that.
— Kww( talk) 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You reverted a lot of changes without giving an adequate explanation. I just performed some changes at the article please do check my edit summaries and please do provide edit summaries and explanations in case you are going to perform further changes. Nobody has a clue what are the reasons for your changes. Please also note that there is not a single reference that says that this individual is an Al-qaeda member. I do not have an opinion about that it might be true or not, the point is that all information especially in biographies must be verified by sources. Anyway. In case you disagree with one or more of my changes than please start a thread on that articles talk page and we will work. Have a nice day Madrid1976 ( talk) 04:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. As I'm sure you would appreciate we spent a long time writing it so please excuse our ruthless reverts. Thanks for the ref! -- Cassianto Talk 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Please DO NOT remove any Article for Deletion proposal, that's why there is a discussion on the proposal, so if you do not agree with this AfD proposal please state so. By simply deleting AfD that is considered vandalism and you risk having your editing privileges revoke. Thank you for your time. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey—I noticed that you removed (reverted over) a number of PRODs today and before without giving any edit summary or other explanation. There's no rule that says you must, but I personally would really appreciate some feedback on what you disagree with when you remove my own PRODs. czar · · 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Was there a specific reason you removed my PROD here? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything before I send it to AfD. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Sue Rangell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made to
Talk:Arvind Singh, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks,
Sue Rangell[
citation needed
23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Sad user picture. THanks for the notice re Mr Singh. I have removed the deletion proposal as I believe he is notable. Odd uncited stuff on his user page. Thanks again Victuallers ( talk) 00:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Reply to your message on removal of my PROD nomination TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for letting me know about your prod removal. Judging from the previous discussion on the article's Talk page, there was no real consensus and the previous prod had simply been removed due to an editor's interest in fixing it a few years back...which never quite panned out. Although even I am not sure that the article should be deleted, it's not useful at all in its current state - including only uncited statements, along with vague mentions of having been covered in print magazines which I do not currently have access to to check (although I will see if I can dig any of them up). What do you think should be done? Is an AfD appropriate in this scenario? Thanks, Feather Jonah ( talk) 00:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know that the article has been taken to AfD. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterbeach F.C.. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ack, I did look through the previous revisions but missed that it'd been prodded before! Thanks for letting me know, I'll take it to AfD. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 20:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you challenged my speedy deletion template at Transformers 4 (film). I'm aware that the article appears to go into greater detail than Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014) does, but if you look closely, the majority of the article is directly copied from that section, and the rest is re-phrasing of information presented there. I respect your right to challenge and remove a speedy deletion nomination, but I was wondering if you could elaborate as to which content you feel is present in this article that is not present in the main one. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie ( Je vous invite à me parler) 01:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it was not your intention, but you warned Special:Contributions/Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz45 3 times for edits before they had a chance to read the warnings. ⁓ Hello 71 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
You go too far in removing links in the Most Massive stars article. Some of the stars that you redirected to that article were previous directed to articles that contained the relevant information about that star even if they weren't specifically or only about that star. An example would be the R136 group which are all referenced in a single article about the R136 cluster. I have no clue how to fix this other than simply reverting all your changes, which is obviously undesirable, so I'd rather you sort it out. Or should have been. I'm finding it difficult to check what the old versions were since the current redirections show even in those. I'm getting tied in knots chasing this. Lithopsian ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Everytime Clayton Cohn pops up in my watchlist, I have to smile. I love your name. I can't decide to call you Mr./Ms. Rotten or say regards to rotten. Hmmm, I guess you know your mentally not alright when you chuckle at rotten regard. My favourite username is User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you removed the PROD, but clearly you can see that this page needs to be deleted. There are no citations to verify any of the information, it's promotional in nature (the only link points to their MySpace page with "purchase" links all over it), the notability of the subject has not been established; they don't even have a website. If this page exists, anyone should be able to make their own band page. Sal Calyso ( talk) 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Regard,
Thank you for letting me know that you removed the prod template from Futurama/Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis. All Wikipedia articles require citations from reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the corresponding subject's notability. At present, the article in question has no such sources, as Amazon.com is not a valid source. I have looked for sources for this article, but have not been successful in finding any. Do you know of any? If not, I will likely start an AfD for the article. I would appreciate any help you can provide in this matter.
Neelix ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I've sent it to AfD here instead. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your notice--it's only fair to notify you as well. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I missed that in the history. I'll take to AfD. Giant Snowman 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you placed a speedy tag (A9) on this article. I had considered speedying this as well and wanted to explain to you my reasons for PRODing it instead. Though the band no longer has an individual article, I felt that the album article still "indicate[s] the importance or significance of the subject" by claiming sales exceeding 150,000, a handful of reviews (albeit in questionably reliable sources), and containing a song that was used in a video game. In any case, we seem to agree that the article is not needed, and that's the main thing. Cheers! Gongshow Talk 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Regard,
Hello. I put the tag there not because of it's notability, but because of it's terrible grammar and citation style. I have replaced the PROD. Cheers! Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 02:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi RR. Just curious - you raised this AFD with the rationale that it was a "contested PROD" - but it was your yourself who removed the PROD tag. Since PROD and AFD both take the same amount of time (and PRODs are, argueably, a lot less effort for both admins and the community at large), I just wondered what your rationale was? Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 11:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Fine, thanks for letting me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries mate! Didn't realise. I will AFD it. Cheers, Stalwart 111 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It's ok. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 18:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
All right, can you AfD it then? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! KTC ( talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected the description of the file Allu Arjun Trivikram film shooting.jpg which was tagged for deletion due to a disputed rationale. Please do check and let me know whether i did the right thing. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala ( talk) 09:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding notability tags to articles without doing the research. They will be expanded in due course, so stop wasting your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is that they are (or rather were) both active members of WikiProject Food and drink. Viriditas ( talk) 09:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to have to close this in this manner but the consensus was clear.
Per overwhelming consensus here you are banned from posting on any page or talk page starting with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship including the base pages themselves. This ban is indefinite and remains until the community overturns it.
There does not seem to be a consensus to prevent you from discussing RfA or candidates in other forums in an appropriate fashion. There is some sentiment that discussing these things in other venues in an appropriate fashion may be productive. The purpose of this ban is to prevent disruption to RfA and should not act as a gag on the subject unless the community comes to another consensus.
If this ban is violated any admin can block without warning at their discretion. Durations will increase if violations repeat. Chillum 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Best of luck! |
I do hope that you will try to follow the guidelines more properly and become an asset to the community, and that your t-ban be lifted one day. Best of luck! -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 02:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Fictional Stories set in Vatican City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Silva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 18 November 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)
16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello, Rotten regard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
SwisterTwister
talk
22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have undone your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) since it is really a closure that should be performed by an administrator. I'd suggest that you stick to content areas for a while before moving into the maintenance parts of the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed from your edits that you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. Have you edited under any other username before? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. — Kww( talk) 04:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Rotten regard ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't believe this is an "improper alternate account", as I've explained above in my reply to Hersfold. Rotten regard ( talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Blocked User:General announcement, making this no longer an "alternate" account. Please note that your behaviour at the AFD for Flat Bastion Road was highly problematic, and what drew all of this attention in the first place. Non-admin closes are only acceptable when the disposition of an AFD is completely uncontroversial, and the fact that your close was reverted means that it couldn't possibly have been uncontroversial. Don't repeat behaviour like that.
— Kww( talk) 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You reverted a lot of changes without giving an adequate explanation. I just performed some changes at the article please do check my edit summaries and please do provide edit summaries and explanations in case you are going to perform further changes. Nobody has a clue what are the reasons for your changes. Please also note that there is not a single reference that says that this individual is an Al-qaeda member. I do not have an opinion about that it might be true or not, the point is that all information especially in biographies must be verified by sources. Anyway. In case you disagree with one or more of my changes than please start a thread on that articles talk page and we will work. Have a nice day Madrid1976 ( talk) 04:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. As I'm sure you would appreciate we spent a long time writing it so please excuse our ruthless reverts. Thanks for the ref! -- Cassianto Talk 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Please DO NOT remove any Article for Deletion proposal, that's why there is a discussion on the proposal, so if you do not agree with this AfD proposal please state so. By simply deleting AfD that is considered vandalism and you risk having your editing privileges revoke. Thank you for your time. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey—I noticed that you removed (reverted over) a number of PRODs today and before without giving any edit summary or other explanation. There's no rule that says you must, but I personally would really appreciate some feedback on what you disagree with when you remove my own PRODs. czar · · 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Was there a specific reason you removed my PROD here? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything before I send it to AfD. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Sue Rangell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made to
Talk:Arvind Singh, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks,
Sue Rangell[
citation needed
23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Sad user picture. THanks for the notice re Mr Singh. I have removed the deletion proposal as I believe he is notable. Odd uncited stuff on his user page. Thanks again Victuallers ( talk) 00:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Reply to your message on removal of my PROD nomination TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for letting me know about your prod removal. Judging from the previous discussion on the article's Talk page, there was no real consensus and the previous prod had simply been removed due to an editor's interest in fixing it a few years back...which never quite panned out. Although even I am not sure that the article should be deleted, it's not useful at all in its current state - including only uncited statements, along with vague mentions of having been covered in print magazines which I do not currently have access to to check (although I will see if I can dig any of them up). What do you think should be done? Is an AfD appropriate in this scenario? Thanks, Feather Jonah ( talk) 00:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know that the article has been taken to AfD. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterbeach F.C.. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ack, I did look through the previous revisions but missed that it'd been prodded before! Thanks for letting me know, I'll take it to AfD. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 20:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you challenged my speedy deletion template at Transformers 4 (film). I'm aware that the article appears to go into greater detail than Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014) does, but if you look closely, the majority of the article is directly copied from that section, and the rest is re-phrasing of information presented there. I respect your right to challenge and remove a speedy deletion nomination, but I was wondering if you could elaborate as to which content you feel is present in this article that is not present in the main one. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie ( Je vous invite à me parler) 01:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it was not your intention, but you warned Special:Contributions/Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz45 3 times for edits before they had a chance to read the warnings. ⁓ Hello 71 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
You go too far in removing links in the Most Massive stars article. Some of the stars that you redirected to that article were previous directed to articles that contained the relevant information about that star even if they weren't specifically or only about that star. An example would be the R136 group which are all referenced in a single article about the R136 cluster. I have no clue how to fix this other than simply reverting all your changes, which is obviously undesirable, so I'd rather you sort it out. Or should have been. I'm finding it difficult to check what the old versions were since the current redirections show even in those. I'm getting tied in knots chasing this. Lithopsian ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Everytime Clayton Cohn pops up in my watchlist, I have to smile. I love your name. I can't decide to call you Mr./Ms. Rotten or say regards to rotten. Hmmm, I guess you know your mentally not alright when you chuckle at rotten regard. My favourite username is User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you removed the PROD, but clearly you can see that this page needs to be deleted. There are no citations to verify any of the information, it's promotional in nature (the only link points to their MySpace page with "purchase" links all over it), the notability of the subject has not been established; they don't even have a website. If this page exists, anyone should be able to make their own band page. Sal Calyso ( talk) 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Regard,
Thank you for letting me know that you removed the prod template from Futurama/Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis. All Wikipedia articles require citations from reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the corresponding subject's notability. At present, the article in question has no such sources, as Amazon.com is not a valid source. I have looked for sources for this article, but have not been successful in finding any. Do you know of any? If not, I will likely start an AfD for the article. I would appreciate any help you can provide in this matter.
Neelix ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I've sent it to AfD here instead. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your notice--it's only fair to notify you as well. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I missed that in the history. I'll take to AfD. Giant Snowman 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you placed a speedy tag (A9) on this article. I had considered speedying this as well and wanted to explain to you my reasons for PRODing it instead. Though the band no longer has an individual article, I felt that the album article still "indicate[s] the importance or significance of the subject" by claiming sales exceeding 150,000, a handful of reviews (albeit in questionably reliable sources), and containing a song that was used in a video game. In any case, we seem to agree that the article is not needed, and that's the main thing. Cheers! Gongshow Talk 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Regard,
Hello. I put the tag there not because of it's notability, but because of it's terrible grammar and citation style. I have replaced the PROD. Cheers! Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 02:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi RR. Just curious - you raised this AFD with the rationale that it was a "contested PROD" - but it was your yourself who removed the PROD tag. Since PROD and AFD both take the same amount of time (and PRODs are, argueably, a lot less effort for both admins and the community at large), I just wondered what your rationale was? Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 11:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Fine, thanks for letting me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries mate! Didn't realise. I will AFD it. Cheers, Stalwart 111 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It's ok. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 18:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
All right, can you AfD it then? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! KTC ( talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected the description of the file Allu Arjun Trivikram film shooting.jpg which was tagged for deletion due to a disputed rationale. Please do check and let me know whether i did the right thing. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala ( talk) 09:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding notability tags to articles without doing the research. They will be expanded in due course, so stop wasting your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is that they are (or rather were) both active members of WikiProject Food and drink. Viriditas ( talk) 09:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to have to close this in this manner but the consensus was clear.
Per overwhelming consensus here you are banned from posting on any page or talk page starting with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship including the base pages themselves. This ban is indefinite and remains until the community overturns it.
There does not seem to be a consensus to prevent you from discussing RfA or candidates in other forums in an appropriate fashion. There is some sentiment that discussing these things in other venues in an appropriate fashion may be productive. The purpose of this ban is to prevent disruption to RfA and should not act as a gag on the subject unless the community comes to another consensus.
If this ban is violated any admin can block without warning at their discretion. Durations will increase if violations repeat. Chillum 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Best of luck! |
I do hope that you will try to follow the guidelines more properly and become an asset to the community, and that your t-ban be lifted one day. Best of luck! -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 02:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Fictional Stories set in Vatican City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Silva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 18 November 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)
16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)