SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey there! Would you believe the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surplus business is still open? JungleCat talk/ contrib 02:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was the first time I have been through this process so I wasn't sure how it would work out or if anything would get done. I'm glad to see it is closed out now. There is nothing much more discouraging than to see our work taken over by corporate advertisements. That happens too often on the internet already so I hope it doesn't happen here too. Thanks for reporting the photos for copywrite violation. -Crunchy Numbers 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I nominated an article for deletion but it turned out that it had been nominated a year ago so the link went to the old archived discussion. Then I tried to increment the nomination number with subst:nfd2 but it gave strange results when I saved the page. Then I reverted the page to the original nomination. The page is Cuisine of Kentucky. -Crunchy Numbers 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- You should use {{subst:afdx|second}}. It is a bit confusing! I didn't edit it so that you could start the nomination process. -- Merope Talk 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!I'll start using the Show preview button more now. -Crunchy Numbers 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you still have problems getting it to work, I can set it up for you and you can fill out the deletion reason. I just don't want to nominate an article on behalf of another user. --
Merope
Talk 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought I had it done but someone pointed out I didn't put an entry in the afd log. Tried to but it didn't get it's own section title and shows up as part of another article discussion. Hopefully someone will fix it. -Crunchy Numbers 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you still have problems getting it to work, I can set it up for you and you can fill out the deletion reason. I just don't want to nominate an article on behalf of another user. --
Merope
Talk 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
.. can you give some examples of my non-minor editing being marked as minor? — Prodigenous Zee - 09:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- The one I reverted and marked as a non-minor edit was one. Minor edits should be fixing spelling mistakes not introducing new ones. I looked at your recent edits and in probably 30-40% of the ones marked as minor you had deleted or changed words and even paragraphs. Anyway I already pasted the guideline for non-minor edits for you in your user space. Do what you want from here out. I'll unwatch Iron Maiden and you can knock yourself out. -Crunchy Numbers 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There are many anti-vandalism bots on Wikipedia, but they aren't particularly designed to handle external links spamming because the program fails to notice what is a good external link and what is not. However, it doesn't really make that big of a difference. Admins have a rollback button, so it's not that hard to revert back. -- Nishkid64 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That was actually a typo on my user page. I'll fix that. O_o How many reverts are incomplete, may I ask? I typically do doublecheck and undo any I mess up. I'll check my browser settings to make sure it's not doing anything it shouldn't. On a side note, are the VandalBots working okay? The previous day I had notice in the History of pages that a lot of Bots apparently had reverted to vandalized edits as well. Again, sorry for the mix up. - WarthogDemon 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, my settings seem alright, so from here on out whenever I spot vandalism I'll just go to the History Tab and revert from there (as opposed to the "edit" button under the "Previous Reversion." I'm guessing some of the unreverted vandalism comes from sections I can't see. (Like a different vandal vandalizing a different section.) Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry for the trouble. :) Peace. -
WarthogDemon 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- With so much vandalism and trolling going around its easy to get a little paranoid. Sorry if I was a little heavy about it. You can click on previous edit to scroll back one difference until you get to non vandalized material. There can still be burried vandalism if someone edits unknowingly on top of vandalism. The history list is probably the best way.
-Crunchy Numbers 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks again. Glad you caught myself so I can get better at this. - WarthogDemon 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- With so much vandalism and trolling going around its easy to get a little paranoid. Sorry if I was a little heavy about it. You can click on previous edit to scroll back one difference until you get to non vandalized material. There can still be burried vandalism if someone edits unknowingly on top of vandalism. The history list is probably the best way.
-Crunchy Numbers 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I did indeed make a mistake on that one. Sorry, Gwernol 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't vandalize Guitar. Why are you accusing me of doing so? The only relevant change I found in Guitar's history was when I killed a spam link. - Will Pittenger 04:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about the vandalism warning then (I see you removed it anyway). As I explained in the Guitar talk page you did revert two consecutive times to vandalized versions of guitar after other people had already reverted the vandalism. That makes it accidental vandalism I guess. The first edit I was referring to was guitar Revision as of 03:05, 17 November 2006.
Your next edit after that reverted over more stuff that 141.150.109.100 had added. Both times you reverted to 141.150.109.100's version so it looked really suspicious.
- I also found in your history that you had accused a newbie editor of vandalism to guitar when he had acutally removed it and convinced him that he had actually added something. That user is User talk:71.146.169.85. On his talk page after my comments you mention that you still can't find where he didn't vandalise the page. guitar at 04:37, 6 November 2006.
- You also mention that the problem with your mistaken reverts is with Popups. I've seen lots of others use popups with no problems so I assume you made some mistake. You seem to make lots of other good contributions but things get complicated at guitar when the vandalism doesn't get reverted completely. If you are tired of seeing vandalism warnings, as you mentioned, then maybe that is a sign to quit using popups. -Crunchy Numbers 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a bug with Popups. If you attempt to revert the current version, Popups pretends it succeeded -- even though it does nothing. Lupin is working on it.
Will (
Talk -
contribs) 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Good job with the revert at the guitar article. My past revert apparently did not get all the vandalism, once again thanks...Keep up the good work.__ Seadog ♪ 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you. -Crunchy Numbers 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would check back with you and I see there are still some issues with your use of Popups.
In Taylor Lautner you reverted at 23:23, 1 December 2006. Your comment says --(Revert to the revision prior to revision 91475446 dated 2006-12-01 22:37:51 by Academic Challenger using popups)
What actually seems to have happened is you reverted to this version -- 22:37, 1 December 2006 71.251.181.169 (Talk) (→Personal life)
That was the first of the two vandalized versions by 71.251.181.169. When I compare your rev with this they are the same. I hope you get this figured out. -Crunchy Numbers 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lupin appears to have been having problems. For a while, I was having problems reverting the version I wanted. Either nothing happened or I ended up with the wrong version.
- However, I rarely revert these days. At least that is true with items in my watchlist. Typically, either a bot or a person has already reverted. Trouble is, that the don't always warn the user. In fact, most people don't bother. Without those warnings, it is tough to get someone blocked. Will ( Talk - contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The edits by this guy are correct, but his language is of course unacceptable. If it concerns you, you might wish to endorse Wikipedia:Requests for comment/89.242.164.114. Tb ( talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. The edits were correct, the guy's language was completely inappropriate. I'm a speedy looker at the pages I watch. I contacted you because I was sufficiently bothered by his language to invite you to agree that his behavior was unacceptable. Tb ( talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thanks for catching it. (I hate when that happens. It makes me look like the vandal! Thanks for looking deeper.) Kostaki mou ( talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
| Wikimeetup Kentucky - We need you! | |
|---|---|
| Hi Crunchy Numbers! I'm helping to organize THATCamp Kentucky - June 1 & 2 at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. Take a look at the Tentative Schedule. Let's get together in person to work on Kentucky-related wikipedia pages, what do you say? If you have any questions, please email the THATCamp KY Organizer, Lee Skallerup Bessette (Morehead State University, @readywriting) at thatcampky@gmail.com. Please sign up to participate Wikimeetup Kentucky. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! Randolph.hollingsworth ( talk) 18:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |
Your upload of File:Ashland KY pan oct 14 2006.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 12:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Ashland KY skyline fall 06.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 12:22, 6 January 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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Crunchy Numbers. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Crunchy Numbers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Crunchy Numbers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey there! Would you believe the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surplus business is still open? JungleCat talk/ contrib 02:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was the first time I have been through this process so I wasn't sure how it would work out or if anything would get done. I'm glad to see it is closed out now. There is nothing much more discouraging than to see our work taken over by corporate advertisements. That happens too often on the internet already so I hope it doesn't happen here too. Thanks for reporting the photos for copywrite violation. -Crunchy Numbers 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I nominated an article for deletion but it turned out that it had been nominated a year ago so the link went to the old archived discussion. Then I tried to increment the nomination number with subst:nfd2 but it gave strange results when I saved the page. Then I reverted the page to the original nomination. The page is Cuisine of Kentucky. -Crunchy Numbers 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- You should use {{subst:afdx|second}}. It is a bit confusing! I didn't edit it so that you could start the nomination process. -- Merope Talk 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!I'll start using the Show preview button more now. -Crunchy Numbers 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you still have problems getting it to work, I can set it up for you and you can fill out the deletion reason. I just don't want to nominate an article on behalf of another user. --
Merope
Talk 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought I had it done but someone pointed out I didn't put an entry in the afd log. Tried to but it didn't get it's own section title and shows up as part of another article discussion. Hopefully someone will fix it. -Crunchy Numbers 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you still have problems getting it to work, I can set it up for you and you can fill out the deletion reason. I just don't want to nominate an article on behalf of another user. --
Merope
Talk 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
.. can you give some examples of my non-minor editing being marked as minor? — Prodigenous Zee - 09:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- The one I reverted and marked as a non-minor edit was one. Minor edits should be fixing spelling mistakes not introducing new ones. I looked at your recent edits and in probably 30-40% of the ones marked as minor you had deleted or changed words and even paragraphs. Anyway I already pasted the guideline for non-minor edits for you in your user space. Do what you want from here out. I'll unwatch Iron Maiden and you can knock yourself out. -Crunchy Numbers 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There are many anti-vandalism bots on Wikipedia, but they aren't particularly designed to handle external links spamming because the program fails to notice what is a good external link and what is not. However, it doesn't really make that big of a difference. Admins have a rollback button, so it's not that hard to revert back. -- Nishkid64 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That was actually a typo on my user page. I'll fix that. O_o How many reverts are incomplete, may I ask? I typically do doublecheck and undo any I mess up. I'll check my browser settings to make sure it's not doing anything it shouldn't. On a side note, are the VandalBots working okay? The previous day I had notice in the History of pages that a lot of Bots apparently had reverted to vandalized edits as well. Again, sorry for the mix up. - WarthogDemon 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, my settings seem alright, so from here on out whenever I spot vandalism I'll just go to the History Tab and revert from there (as opposed to the "edit" button under the "Previous Reversion." I'm guessing some of the unreverted vandalism comes from sections I can't see. (Like a different vandal vandalizing a different section.) Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry for the trouble. :) Peace. -
WarthogDemon 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- With so much vandalism and trolling going around its easy to get a little paranoid. Sorry if I was a little heavy about it. You can click on previous edit to scroll back one difference until you get to non vandalized material. There can still be burried vandalism if someone edits unknowingly on top of vandalism. The history list is probably the best way.
-Crunchy Numbers 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks again. Glad you caught myself so I can get better at this. - WarthogDemon 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- With so much vandalism and trolling going around its easy to get a little paranoid. Sorry if I was a little heavy about it. You can click on previous edit to scroll back one difference until you get to non vandalized material. There can still be burried vandalism if someone edits unknowingly on top of vandalism. The history list is probably the best way.
-Crunchy Numbers 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I did indeed make a mistake on that one. Sorry, Gwernol 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't vandalize Guitar. Why are you accusing me of doing so? The only relevant change I found in Guitar's history was when I killed a spam link. - Will Pittenger 04:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about the vandalism warning then (I see you removed it anyway). As I explained in the Guitar talk page you did revert two consecutive times to vandalized versions of guitar after other people had already reverted the vandalism. That makes it accidental vandalism I guess. The first edit I was referring to was guitar Revision as of 03:05, 17 November 2006.
Your next edit after that reverted over more stuff that 141.150.109.100 had added. Both times you reverted to 141.150.109.100's version so it looked really suspicious.
- I also found in your history that you had accused a newbie editor of vandalism to guitar when he had acutally removed it and convinced him that he had actually added something. That user is User talk:71.146.169.85. On his talk page after my comments you mention that you still can't find where he didn't vandalise the page. guitar at 04:37, 6 November 2006.
- You also mention that the problem with your mistaken reverts is with Popups. I've seen lots of others use popups with no problems so I assume you made some mistake. You seem to make lots of other good contributions but things get complicated at guitar when the vandalism doesn't get reverted completely. If you are tired of seeing vandalism warnings, as you mentioned, then maybe that is a sign to quit using popups. -Crunchy Numbers 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a bug with Popups. If you attempt to revert the current version, Popups pretends it succeeded -- even though it does nothing. Lupin is working on it.
Will (
Talk -
contribs) 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Good job with the revert at the guitar article. My past revert apparently did not get all the vandalism, once again thanks...Keep up the good work.__ Seadog ♪ 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you. -Crunchy Numbers 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would check back with you and I see there are still some issues with your use of Popups.
In Taylor Lautner you reverted at 23:23, 1 December 2006. Your comment says --(Revert to the revision prior to revision 91475446 dated 2006-12-01 22:37:51 by Academic Challenger using popups)
What actually seems to have happened is you reverted to this version -- 22:37, 1 December 2006 71.251.181.169 (Talk) (→Personal life)
That was the first of the two vandalized versions by 71.251.181.169. When I compare your rev with this they are the same. I hope you get this figured out. -Crunchy Numbers 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lupin appears to have been having problems. For a while, I was having problems reverting the version I wanted. Either nothing happened or I ended up with the wrong version.
- However, I rarely revert these days. At least that is true with items in my watchlist. Typically, either a bot or a person has already reverted. Trouble is, that the don't always warn the user. In fact, most people don't bother. Without those warnings, it is tough to get someone blocked. Will ( Talk - contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The edits by this guy are correct, but his language is of course unacceptable. If it concerns you, you might wish to endorse Wikipedia:Requests for comment/89.242.164.114. Tb ( talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. The edits were correct, the guy's language was completely inappropriate. I'm a speedy looker at the pages I watch. I contacted you because I was sufficiently bothered by his language to invite you to agree that his behavior was unacceptable. Tb ( talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thanks for catching it. (I hate when that happens. It makes me look like the vandal! Thanks for looking deeper.) Kostaki mou ( talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
| Wikimeetup Kentucky - We need you! | |
|---|---|
| Hi Crunchy Numbers! I'm helping to organize THATCamp Kentucky - June 1 & 2 at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. Take a look at the Tentative Schedule. Let's get together in person to work on Kentucky-related wikipedia pages, what do you say? If you have any questions, please email the THATCamp KY Organizer, Lee Skallerup Bessette (Morehead State University, @readywriting) at thatcampky@gmail.com. Please sign up to participate Wikimeetup Kentucky. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! Randolph.hollingsworth ( talk) 18:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |
Your upload of File:Ashland KY pan oct 14 2006.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 12:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Ashland KY skyline fall 06.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 12:22, 6 January 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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Crunchy Numbers. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Crunchy Numbers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Crunchy Numbers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)