Hi. Just to let you know that I've asked the copyright team to check that the "Customs and rituals" section of Gathering Day, which you copy edited today, to ask them to ensure that the article complies with the copyright terms of Hilaire Wood's page. However, I've also proposed deletion of Gathering Day as it appears to muddle two different things. Calan Awst takes place in August and Gathering Day in June (Midsummer's Day). --Stfg (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stfg, thanks for keeping me posted about the copyvio but I am not sure who is Hilaire Wood. I added info from the book of Ellaine Mc Coy. I did not check for copyright issues though. ----
It was just to notify you of what I did, because you contributed to the article recently and I've prodded it. I believe the reference to McCoy's book that you added is correct for Gathering Day. Hilaire Wood is the author of the reference listed as FN1, which was added by the article creator long ago, not by you. I think it has nothing to do with Gathering Day, and that the article creator confused two things. Since Gathering Day might be a decent topic for an article, if you wanted to take charge of it, I'd be happy for the prod to go -- and the copyvio notice if we can get rid of the Calan Awst aspects. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've realised I could solve the problem. I've deprodded and stubbed Gathering Day using the source you provided, but paraphrasing a little less closely. I've deleted everything to do with Calan Awst from it, removing that bit of copyvio. Calan Awst was a redirect to Gathering Day; I've pointed it instead to Lammas. I'm done, it's all yours now. --Stfg (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I am not from Ireland so would not be very familiar with the festival. Will expand this article -
You've found more than I thought there would be about it, and it's beginning to look like a nice article now. I've just popped in to position punctuation before the ref tags, which is the Wikipedia style. Hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. That was quite a brave undertaking! I'm impressed that you managed to reduce the article by selecting material from what was already there rather than starting from scratch. I hope this will make it more likely that your approach will be accepted. The fact that two other editors have started to take it from there is encouraging. Your notes on the talk page and the Indian project page were a good idea too.
What I would recommend now is to leave the article alone for a while and see what comes up. After a week or two it should become clear whether the interested editors are happy to let the article develop from its current state. If you like, you can now put the article in your section of the GOCE drive page and mark it as "completed". The word count is 2958, I think. This doesn't stop you doing more on the article if you like, but I think you are already entitled to credit for it. If you do that, I will add a "checked" mark for it.
I hope you won't mind, but I'm going to go in there and fix some typos, tweak some sentence structures and remove the copyedit tag. The tag needs to go now, so that others don't take it on. Hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I have added this article to the backlog elimination drive list, but I am not seriously interested in the drive because of a slow internet connection and my exams coming up next month. I edit more as a distraction between studies. I will leave this article alone for now and see how other editors work on it. Bye! -Wikishagnik 04:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. The {{GOCEreviewed}} template is for when we remove a {{copyedit}} tag without doing any copy editing, because the article is unsuitable for some reason. As you and I both did work on it, it didn't need to be {{GOCEreviewed}} too. Good luck with your upcoming exams. Best, --Stfg (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see a note on the talk page of University of St. La Salle that you copied some material into the article with this edit. I haven't checked to see that you have proper permission to do so, that isn't my current question, I am merely informing you that because much of the article appeared to be a copyright violation, it has been restored to an earlier version with removes your edit. If you have proper authorization to use the material you added, feel free to add it again.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I revdel'd the intervening versions to hide the copyvio, your original edit may not be easy for you to see. I can recover it for you (I think) if you want to try again, just let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I copied stuff insted of adding references. This seems to be a mistake from my end so thanks. -Wikishagnik 23:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012 copy edit backlog elimination drive barnstar!
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. reddogsix (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Old Channal which already has an appropriate specific stub template - it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD08:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where your confusion is coming from at the Help Desk. I've tried to answer it. If you care to read my answer, and see if it makes sense, that'd be great. If you have any further questions, I'd be glad to answer them. --Jayron3204:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, thanks for keeping me posted, yes, I can see that work is required and I will try my best to add content as much as possible. Regards -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually watched the thing last evening.. which inspired my bringing it back to life. Not too bad. It did have some decent moments and was definitely gorier than its predecessors. Not at all surprised, specially considering the Season, that it is now receiving commentary by such as The New York Times. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DR/N that you commented on was not yet opened. For that reason your comment has been moved to the main article space. it is unlikely this case will move forward as there is yet to be participation from involved parties with only a single exception.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not when there are no participants. Please review the guidelines about opening the discussion before openings comments are made. The filing needs more than a single opening from an individual editor. You can notify each editor that the case is in danger of closing if you feel that there is a chance that the filing will move forward, but this case shows clear issues and violations of BLP policy so I decided it was not worth doing so this particular time. However here is the link to the "Ping" templates to use in the futuer when you see a filing not getting enough participants: Template:DRN participation ping. This can generally persuade editors if they are interested and will usually recieve some comment if not. Also, if you have more you wish to say, or one of the templates doesn't cover your comment or concerns you can use the {{subst:Dispute resolution noticeboard olive branch|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}} template and add you message inside it. (This can also be given to editors as a barnstar).
Also, always identify yourself with a friendly greeting and introduction and state clearly that you are a volunteer with something like: "Hello, I am "Username", a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am opening this section for discussion. (then layout your concerns in a brief statement)".--Amadscientist (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there are currently discussions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which require the attention of a volunteer. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Below this message is the DR/N status update.
You are receiving this notification to request assistance at the DR/N where you are listed as a volunteer. The number of cases has either become too large and/or there are many cases shaded with an alert status. Those shaded pink are marked as: "This request requires a volunteer's attention". Those shaded blue have had a volunteers attention recently
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013.
as regards mediation/discussion on Dr. Proctor, seems very simple to solve expeditiously through an official &/or unofficial Wiki invitation to appropriate schools said to employ and grant alleged qualifications(that disagree with State Medical Board file btw) Here is all the contact info.
Investigation of Masters Degree, PhD, Thesis adviser, M.D. Residency, Specialization Degree(s) in Pathology, Dermatology,Neuroscience, BioPsychiatry contacthttp://registrar.uth.tmc.edu/reg_contact.html
Investigation of Faculty and/or Staff position at Baylor. http://www.bcm.edu/hr/contact
Investigation of Faculty and/or Staff position at UTMB http://hr.utmb.edu/Inhouse expert (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
seems they should have input in discussion & be concerned if or (if not) someone is going around claiming employment at their school.Inhouse expert (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just wanted to say that I think you don't get credit and take to much criticism for your efforts to move discussions forward, keep your chin up.Inhouse expert (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not an admin, but I saw the thread at ANI and thought I would take a look at it. I left you and the other editor a note at the article's talk page. I personally feel that shows like that are a total waste of space and time, and by extension, so are the Wikipedia articles on them. But the fact remains that waaaay too many people like that stuff and trying to get rid of the articles on here would be about as productive as trying to get rid of the Pokemon articles. Please don't be offended, but I really do agree that you PROD'd that article in error. Take a look at my note on the article talk page for details. Did the other editor make way too big a deal out of it? Heck, ya he did. But, he appears to be pretty much a WP:SPA editor on TV reality shows, and as I mentioned at the talk page, doesn't seem to grasp WP:N all that well. SPA editors are not always a problem. I edit a lot on high school articles and many of them are maintained almost completely by SPA's. Who else is going to care about a school in BF nowhere that graduates 15 kids a year except one of those 15 kids, ya know? I know I don't want to spend any time working on reality tv articles, and I doubt you do, so given that they are not going to go away, why don't you just do like I do and ignore them completely? You will run into many editors like the one you are in conflict with if you don't, IMHO. Anyway, I hope tomorrow is better for you and I wish you happy editing! Take care. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Long version: Remember the section in The Seagull where Chekhov satires the pretentiousness of Shamrayev, who somehow manages to mangle the Latin maxim De gustibus non est disputandum into "de gustibus aut bene, aut nihil"?
As you can see from see from my contributions, I'm interested in supposedly "high-brow" things and also completely sports mad.
My sports-mad friends simply accept that, while it is not their taste, I am also interested The Yartz
My high-brow culture friends simply accept that, while it is not their taste, I am also mad about sport, particularly about State of Origin series, arguably the greatest sports rivalry in the universe [dubious – discuss] and most Bogan sports series in Australia[dubious – discuss]
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Peter Proctor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!11:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikishagnik, Thanks for your apology on my talk page after receiving an email from User:TransporterMan. I've left you a more complete message there if you care to read it. However, your continued presence and interference in the case in question, makes your apology a bit hollow. There are two cases awaiting moderation. Why don't you leave the case I am moderating,[3] and which you are undermining and disrupting, and take a case that needs a moderator? I don't get this. User:Steven Zhang (DRN volunteer coordinator) any comments on this issue? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Keithbob here. Sometimes more than one volunteer is needed when a dispute gets a bit out of hand, but I think Keithbob has this one down pat. I'd really encourage you to take on a case that needs another volunteer - drop me or one of the other DRN guys a line if you need some tips :). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!11:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I really like the way User:Keithbob was all polite and diplomatic on his own talk page and chose to go caustic on mine. And User:Steven Zhang, you may feel that Keithbob has it down pat! but that really does not explain why the DRN about this song says Needs Attention for so long? --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Needs attention" is a case status that happens by default when the case has been opened for longer than a pre-detemined time. It doesn't necessarily mean that it needs more volunteers, but it is a guide for volunteers to see if it has been abandoned. In this case, Keith is still working on it, and it might be a situation where he can manage on his own, as he has indicated. There are other cases that do need assistance, perhaps you could look at one of those? StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!23:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikishagnik, I have to disagree with your comment that Kiethbob was being "caustic". The volunteer was being frank and honest. But I am very sure it was not meant to be mean spirited in any way. Sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Zhang (talk·contribs), from my own R&D I feel this is an issue with Earwig Bot and its settings need to be tweaked, so that it does not red-flag a discussion in progress (even ones that threaten to go stale). Mark Miller (talk·contribs), in view of your opinion it would help me a lot personally if you can explain why Keithbob (talk·contribs) on his own talk page says Thanks for coming by and I sincerely appreciate your apology and hopefully we have both learned something from this while his comments on my talk page are not so friendly.--Wikishagnik (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as Steven explained this false status of Needs Attention is an issue that is currently being discussed on the DRN talk page. Meanwhile, If I sounded caustic, I apologize. Let me try again. What I am asking is if you could please leave the Hava Nagilla case and take up another case that has no moderator. That would diffuse this whole situation. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really like your opening statement on Oscar López Rivera.
I'd been thinking about that case overnight, considering taking it, so let me pass on a couple of ideas that you've probably thought of them already. So FWIW:
They're throwing court cases and sentencing documents back and forth at one another. They need to be aware that those sources are not usable as reliable sources under BLPPRIMARY, which says in pertinent part:
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
(Emphasis added.)
Just because a crime is officially classified under the law as a "violent crime" does not mean that all possible acts that can constitute the crime are necessarily physically violent, any more than the fact that Florida is officially referred to as the Sunshine State means that there is 100% sunshine there. When used that way, the term is a classification, not a definition.
I was going to point them to the very specific language from SYN that:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Thanks for your ideas and yes, I will keep them, they are good. I will wait for the Wikiproject Criminal Biography to respond, as I will need some consensus about this. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the God's Not Dead (film) case! I think it was probably a typo but just in case.......... I wanted to point out that a WP:RFC is for content only, however a WP:RfC/U is a community review of a users conduct. I bring it up because this post was a bit misleading (likely it was unintentional) "if you feel that issue is more about Anupam's conduct then please consider discussing your points in a RFC and not here. While we at this DRN try to resolve differences, some things are beyond our scope and cannot be addressed here to your complete satisfaction. The volunteers at WP:RFC are more experienced at handling conduct issues" You are an excellent moderator and I hope you come by DRN more often. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notice re the dispute resolution regarding Oscar Lopez Rivera. I have been researching the issue, and will be able to comment later tonight. Thanks again, Sarason (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE: I have just provided my comment in the dispute resolution for Oscar Lopez Rivera. [4]
I understand that they maybe can't agree, but one possible solution could be that they all agree about not editing each others articles... that would be something, no? Before closing down... Hafspajen (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually fine with that. Let me know if that includes the Talk page. I still think some of the statements within the article are poorly worded, unsupported, or questionably supported, but I'll leave the editing of those sections to others.Ss 051 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not go down the road to blaming individuals for the failure or success of a DRN. There is no rule or law that says all Wikipedia editors have to agree with consensus, and have to start editing the way others want them to edit. Remember, consensus does not mean a solution that makes everyone happy, it is simply something that everyone can live with. So, if editors stop themselves from making changes that go against the consensus, it's enough. Also understand that not agreeing to what is being said in a discussion, does not imply disruptive editing. All Wikipedia editors are entitled to their own opinions and I personally respect that. Admin blocks and such work best when there is a strong presence of disruptive editing such as 3RR, plagiarism etc. and simply sticking to your point of view in a discussion is not on that list. I hope I have been able to address all your concerns. For now, lets assume good faith and I wish happy editing to all Wikipedia editors (even those who don't agree with me).--Wikishagnik (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Abdullah Abbas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.
If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.
Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
I saw your comments at the DRN discussion above. This comment isn't going to be much (if any) help, and I regret that. But particularly for a lot of topics of this nature, relating to current events and/or people that are subjects of contentious discussion in the few reliable sources we can find which do discuss them, sometimes the best thing to do at least in the short term might be to try to establish as much as possible what potential articles have the established notability to exist and see what encyclopedic content might be relevant enough for inclusion in them. This will still unfortunately lead to some questions regarding the amount of weight to give the potential subtopics in the main article, but where spinout can be achieved it tends to reduce the contentiousness of the discussion. Sometimes, anyway. And, particularly for topics like this which tend to be covered primarily in foreign language (in this case Japanese) sources, seeing if there is any way to find people who are comparatively expert in what are and are not so much reliable sources in those languages to take part in the discussion would probably help. I, of course, don't know a damn thing about Japan or Japanese culture, and I wish that weren't the case.
Thank you both for your views. We as DRN volunteers take every dispute seriously and address issues as they are presented. Yes, the article does pose a challenge but articles are edited for long periods of time (sometimes by hundreds of editors) and issues like article size, reliable sources etc. get addressed and resolved by more than one individual. Its important to stay calm and focused on what we do best all times. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could largely redact and summarize the use of the song at football matches, because this section extends far beyond the importance of the matter. If you have good sources for the article, it is also still lacking in that regard. (Though I added some today, the article and two sections still demanded "ref improve" tags.) Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk·contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Hello, Wikishagnik. 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.
Hello, Wikishagnik. 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.
Hello, Wikishagnik. 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anserated until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Kashmir conflict's talk page. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI#Content manipulation on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea because we need fresh set of eyes with a view to resolve content related editorial differences. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anserated is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
