Welcome!
Hello, Brmull, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Aaroncrick (
talk) 10:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 03:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Firedoglake.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I made a slight one word edit on what was entered. Please examine and let me know what you think. And thank you for staying with it. I know editing here as a hobby can sometime be frustrating working me people like me. ;-) Basileias ( talk) 03:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved some, feel free to move all. :) jengod ( talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
what part of lose the elitism and arrogance and NOT everyone knows off hand what uh "nom de guerre" means, and this stuff is also for causal readers too, not just for PhDs or elitist snots didn't you grasp?
You honestly (and people such as you) think that EVERYONE on the planet knows off hand what the hell "nom de guerre" means? If so, you're actually DELUDED, not enlightened or educated. WP is NOT just for PhD or high-minded readers, but for EVERYONE...and what is the big problem in simply parenthetically clarifying what a stuffy snobbish sounding expression like uh "nom de guerre" actually means? What is the HARM in clarifying it a bit briefly?
When people (who are uh "educated") use high-sounding language, it's NOT done for the benefit of the reader...but only so that the writer or speaker can strut down the street and say "hey look at me I talk smart." (Keith Olbmerann)
Anyway, it would be nice if you didn't think the universe revolved around your brain, thinking that JUST BECAUSE you and some other elitist types may know what that French phrase means (I know it, but I try to consider EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING...), does not mean that every casual reader may know that thing right away.
There have been criticisms hurled against Wikipedia (by writers, and educators, no less) that too many Wikipedia articles are WAY TOO DIFFICULT AND TOO TECHNICAL in language and style. This crap of "nom de guerre" is just another little example of the problem. So to answer your rude question "does anyone besides Art and Muscle think 'nom de guerre' needs to be defined, so and so"...obviously there is, since not every editor who has reviewed and looked over the article has felt the uptight need to remove the parenthetical clarification. But guess what, ONLY A FEW have felt the need to remove it. You being one. Stop edit warring over this. Only true vandalism, or opinion, or inaccuracies, should be "reverted" or "removed"...NOT good-faith clarifications or edits. Bye... Art and Muscle ( talk) 04:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Addendum...as I said a few times already, in reality I do think this matter can go either way. Though some editors actually agree that there's no harm (and only arguable benefit) in clarifying and making plain to average readers. Art and Muscle ( talk) 05:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to the left of the search box on the top of the page there is a triangle. Move the mouse over that and when the word 'Move' pops up click on it. Enter the new name for the page.
I am reluctant to rename Chak Shah Muhammad until I can find the official name on Google Maps. The location on Google Maps is also needed to add the co-ordinates. These co-ordinates are usually added for the locations of geographic places because people like to see on the map where the place is.
ps See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistan/Cartography for more info. QuentinUK ( talk) 08:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added the map info. QuentinUK ( talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I have revised the section you mentioned. Thank you for offering constructive suggestions in a polite way. Peace01234 ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Message added 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Marc Kupper| talk 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to place the accuracy tag, you should follow the procedures that Berean has articulated on the article talk page. As I've made clear, I don't agree with the tag, but I agree that you have the right to put it up. However, if you wish to exercise this right, you should be following the WP procedures while doing so. LedRush ( talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not edit war. You are close to violating
WP:3RR. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no revert rule on accuracy tags. Anyone can place one at any time, provided they have given a basis for the tag in talk, which I have. Brmull ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have reported you
at the 3RR noticeboard.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
FASTILY
(TALK) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)I take this block as a badge of honor. Brmull ( talk) 01:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see and list your comments there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I have made comment at the above case and would once again appreciate your input. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Great observation about the order of paragraphs in the TMR article. Now that I see it, I completely agree. Now the first para gives a much better overview of the subject, in line with WP:Lead. Early morning person ( talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern. I did a diff comparison of the article before the edit war and after and it appeared as though nothing substantial was added. Two health care sections existed in the edit warrior's version so I reverted the whole thing. It turns out one of the healthcare sections was legit and has since been re-added. I think the rest of it was just reverts/minor edits of the edit warrior's text, which was pretty much gibberish. N419 BH 07:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brmull, question for you here in case you missed it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In response to your post in the discussion page for calunnia I have done some research and made some small changes to Murder of Meredith Kercher to help explain how restitution in Italy is determined at criminal trials. I've added a brief paragraph in the Italian criminal procedure section detailing the legal framework, and then I have amended the section "Related Proceedings" regarding Lumumba. Some of the monetary figures have been incorrectly reported, so I have referenced the Massei Ruling just to show the correct amounts. It's important to make clear that Lumumba's restitution is different from compensation or damages, which are far apart in legal-speak. There was also no civil proceeding, victims are regularly represented by lawyers in criminal trials. To answer your exact question related to why they seem to get less than they ask - this is just a feature of trials all over the world - parties tend to ask for ludicrous sums, but courts tend to water it down. In the case of Lumumba, in the first trial, €10,000 in restitution was awarded for the calunnia, €40,000 in compensation for his incurred legal expenses. What's not clear is if the €22,000 in the appeal was added on top of this as more legal expenses (I think this is likely) or, alternatively, the award was increased from 10k to 22k. To be honest, I haven't read many English media sources which get any of this right - so I am loathed to try and find the information - I'd rather just wait for the Italian court's decision to be published. For now, I've left the article's sentence on the 22k as is (it's a bit ambiguous anyway).
Sorry for the long post :) ( Connolly15 ( talk) 22:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC))
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Brmull. 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! 01:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Kage Acheron has also violated the 3RR Rule. Are you gonna threaten him with a block too? -- Gįs Contismalter ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that Gis violated the rule first, and has reverted the edits of multiple editors, by trying to vandalize the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 by falsely adding Mozambique as a responding country Kage Acheron ( talk) 20:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin but as a neutral observer I can tell you that if anyone gets a block it's going to include you Contismalter so best try to talk it out. Brmull ( talk) 20:55, 8 March 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) 14:02, 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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I declined your speedy deletion request for Al Giordano because the content is substantially different (e.g. the previous version had no mention of the Banamex lawsuit), so a speedy in this case would be against policy.Feel free to take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 04:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Brmull. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Costa Titch. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is
vandalism, you have been editing long enough to know
what is not vandalism.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Search engines will not index new articles thar have an AFD tag. So a single editor, who claims to have acted on a personal belief that the *article creator* has a history of creating frivolous articles, has been able to prevent countless people from seeing the article during a time of worldwide interest. I don’t know what you call that, but it’s not right. Brmull ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Brmull, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Aaroncrick (
talk) 10:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 03:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Firedoglake.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I made a slight one word edit on what was entered. Please examine and let me know what you think. And thank you for staying with it. I know editing here as a hobby can sometime be frustrating working me people like me. ;-) Basileias ( talk) 03:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved some, feel free to move all. :) jengod ( talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
what part of lose the elitism and arrogance and NOT everyone knows off hand what uh "nom de guerre" means, and this stuff is also for causal readers too, not just for PhDs or elitist snots didn't you grasp?
You honestly (and people such as you) think that EVERYONE on the planet knows off hand what the hell "nom de guerre" means? If so, you're actually DELUDED, not enlightened or educated. WP is NOT just for PhD or high-minded readers, but for EVERYONE...and what is the big problem in simply parenthetically clarifying what a stuffy snobbish sounding expression like uh "nom de guerre" actually means? What is the HARM in clarifying it a bit briefly?
When people (who are uh "educated") use high-sounding language, it's NOT done for the benefit of the reader...but only so that the writer or speaker can strut down the street and say "hey look at me I talk smart." (Keith Olbmerann)
Anyway, it would be nice if you didn't think the universe revolved around your brain, thinking that JUST BECAUSE you and some other elitist types may know what that French phrase means (I know it, but I try to consider EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING...), does not mean that every casual reader may know that thing right away.
There have been criticisms hurled against Wikipedia (by writers, and educators, no less) that too many Wikipedia articles are WAY TOO DIFFICULT AND TOO TECHNICAL in language and style. This crap of "nom de guerre" is just another little example of the problem. So to answer your rude question "does anyone besides Art and Muscle think 'nom de guerre' needs to be defined, so and so"...obviously there is, since not every editor who has reviewed and looked over the article has felt the uptight need to remove the parenthetical clarification. But guess what, ONLY A FEW have felt the need to remove it. You being one. Stop edit warring over this. Only true vandalism, or opinion, or inaccuracies, should be "reverted" or "removed"...NOT good-faith clarifications or edits. Bye... Art and Muscle ( talk) 04:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Addendum...as I said a few times already, in reality I do think this matter can go either way. Though some editors actually agree that there's no harm (and only arguable benefit) in clarifying and making plain to average readers. Art and Muscle ( talk) 05:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to the left of the search box on the top of the page there is a triangle. Move the mouse over that and when the word 'Move' pops up click on it. Enter the new name for the page.
I am reluctant to rename Chak Shah Muhammad until I can find the official name on Google Maps. The location on Google Maps is also needed to add the co-ordinates. These co-ordinates are usually added for the locations of geographic places because people like to see on the map where the place is.
ps See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistan/Cartography for more info. QuentinUK ( talk) 08:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added the map info. QuentinUK ( talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I have revised the section you mentioned. Thank you for offering constructive suggestions in a polite way. Peace01234 ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Message added 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Marc Kupper| talk 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to place the accuracy tag, you should follow the procedures that Berean has articulated on the article talk page. As I've made clear, I don't agree with the tag, but I agree that you have the right to put it up. However, if you wish to exercise this right, you should be following the WP procedures while doing so. LedRush ( talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not edit war. You are close to violating
WP:3RR. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no revert rule on accuracy tags. Anyone can place one at any time, provided they have given a basis for the tag in talk, which I have. Brmull ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have reported you
at the 3RR noticeboard.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
FASTILY
(TALK) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)I take this block as a badge of honor. Brmull ( talk) 01:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see and list your comments there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I have made comment at the above case and would once again appreciate your input. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Great observation about the order of paragraphs in the TMR article. Now that I see it, I completely agree. Now the first para gives a much better overview of the subject, in line with WP:Lead. Early morning person ( talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern. I did a diff comparison of the article before the edit war and after and it appeared as though nothing substantial was added. Two health care sections existed in the edit warrior's version so I reverted the whole thing. It turns out one of the healthcare sections was legit and has since been re-added. I think the rest of it was just reverts/minor edits of the edit warrior's text, which was pretty much gibberish. N419 BH 07:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brmull, question for you here in case you missed it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In response to your post in the discussion page for calunnia I have done some research and made some small changes to Murder of Meredith Kercher to help explain how restitution in Italy is determined at criminal trials. I've added a brief paragraph in the Italian criminal procedure section detailing the legal framework, and then I have amended the section "Related Proceedings" regarding Lumumba. Some of the monetary figures have been incorrectly reported, so I have referenced the Massei Ruling just to show the correct amounts. It's important to make clear that Lumumba's restitution is different from compensation or damages, which are far apart in legal-speak. There was also no civil proceeding, victims are regularly represented by lawyers in criminal trials. To answer your exact question related to why they seem to get less than they ask - this is just a feature of trials all over the world - parties tend to ask for ludicrous sums, but courts tend to water it down. In the case of Lumumba, in the first trial, €10,000 in restitution was awarded for the calunnia, €40,000 in compensation for his incurred legal expenses. What's not clear is if the €22,000 in the appeal was added on top of this as more legal expenses (I think this is likely) or, alternatively, the award was increased from 10k to 22k. To be honest, I haven't read many English media sources which get any of this right - so I am loathed to try and find the information - I'd rather just wait for the Italian court's decision to be published. For now, I've left the article's sentence on the 22k as is (it's a bit ambiguous anyway).
Sorry for the long post :) ( Connolly15 ( talk) 22:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC))
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Brmull. 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! 01:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Kage Acheron has also violated the 3RR Rule. Are you gonna threaten him with a block too? -- Gįs Contismalter ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that Gis violated the rule first, and has reverted the edits of multiple editors, by trying to vandalize the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 by falsely adding Mozambique as a responding country Kage Acheron ( talk) 20:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin but as a neutral observer I can tell you that if anyone gets a block it's going to include you Contismalter so best try to talk it out. Brmull ( talk) 20:55, 8 March 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) 14:02, 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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I declined your speedy deletion request for Al Giordano because the content is substantially different (e.g. the previous version had no mention of the Banamex lawsuit), so a speedy in this case would be against policy.Feel free to take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 04:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Brmull. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Costa Titch. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is
vandalism, you have been editing long enough to know
what is not vandalism.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Search engines will not index new articles thar have an AFD tag. So a single editor, who claims to have acted on a personal belief that the *article creator* has a history of creating frivolous articles, has been able to prevent countless people from seeing the article during a time of worldwide interest. I don’t know what you call that, but it’s not right. Brmull ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)