User talk:Neljack

Hello, Neljack, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Spencer^T♦C 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at Talk:Jerusalem#Suggested changes (and please revert your change to Jerusalem before someone else does). -- tariqabjotu 06:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended [1] to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work updating Dezső Gyarmati! LukeSurl t c 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neljack, no issue with your raising the attribution and paraphrasing used in the Sian Elias article. I do take issue with simply removing cited material. If you read Wikipedia's policy on copyright, you'll see you're meant to tag the material in question first, which is what I've now done. Also, don't threaten other users, I won't win you any friends on Wikipedia. --LJ Holden 03:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neljack, there's no need to be mystified. A key policy of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your statement that I must not revert your edits was obviously not in good faith. I realise you're new here so won't labour the point. You've now used the proper template and I thank you for that. --LJ Holden 05:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neljack, I'm not really interested in litigating with you over whether or not you acted in bad faith. You've followed the correct procedure and applied the template. Problem solved. --LJ Holden 07:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neljack, yes I've read the close paraphrasing policy. I'm not convinced that the contribution you've highlighted broke the policy, since it was attributed. But I'm not fussed with your edits, although I may look at what the QC said as I think it wasan important counter-point to other claims made. Cheers. --LJ Holden 09:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neljack, no dramas. --LJ Holden 07:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your change for gender reasons was incorrect, as the article refers to a female and the professional description (in British English) of your change is male. The guides suggestion exempts specific descriptors [This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered; or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).]

In some North American English, the word "Comedian" is gender neutral, but like most professions where there are both male & female terms, neither js considered neutral. The artist was described in contemporary writing as a comedienne and she was British, so it should be revert to the original.

DonJay (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)DonJay[reply]

You have missed my point, the use of the gender neutral is not required here, as the article about a female subject. I included the relevant guide clause enclosed above in [ ].

DonJay (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)DonJay[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Northey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Northey was a [[lecturer]] in Political Studies and Planning at the University of Auckland]].<ref>https://www.alumni.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/alumni/af-alumni-groups-and-contacts/af-the-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. Suggest that an administrator address this change. I am worried that this policy be used on too many unnecessary cases, but have no desire to get involved in a conflict. The guide states "or to wording about one-gender contexts, " with no limit to type of contexts and no suggestion of groups only.. Kate Carney, the subject of the text, is female and is not gender neutral. Your interpretation of the rule is too narrow. The exception is not only for groups but for singular persons as well. Otherwise the statement "Tessie O'Shea is a large woman" would be changed and become false as "persons" would include men, and she was not large compared to men OR there could be no "Best Supporting Actress" at the Oscars: to give over-simple examples.

DonJay (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)DonJay[reply]

Thanks. I feel strongly over the unnecessary limitation of the English language, but recognise that this may be from the period & place of my education (1930s & 40s in the UK) . Other contributors should give a better opinion. In both Canada & the UK, I have found that female professionals generally like to be designated by the female form of their profession, even when supporting Gender Neuter forms for other usage. How is it in New Zealand?

DonJay (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)DonJay[reply]

"Comedienne" is rarely used in Canada these days and most style guides indicate that gender-neutral language is preferable. There is still some debate over the use of the term "actress" in North America, and usage varies, but I would say that "actor" is increasingly used for actors of both genders. Most other occupations have become gender-neutral, such as "fire fighter," "police officer," "flight attendant," etc. I don't interpret WP's style guideline about gender neutrality to extend to statements such as "Tessie O'Shea is a large woman." It is entirely permissible to call a woman a woman when referring to an individual :) Sunray (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the sort of thing the exception about one-gender contexts is getting at, not gender-specific terms for occupations. I cannot recall ever hearing female comedians described as "comediennes" in New Zealand - they're just referred as "comedians". Neljack (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what is wrong with this fragment? I don't want to revert again, so please explain what's the matter. //Halibutt 10:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here Regards IJA (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Republic of Kosovo". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you please go back to [2] and indicate if any of the newly provided options are preferred? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neljack, I agree with you 100%. We want material that discusses the institution. The particular section unduly involves presentations of the particular views of certain people. There is an attempt to tie in these views as being the views of the institution, but doing so is SYN. Thanks for letting me restate this policy on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, S. Rich. I think I may have originally expressed myself poorly - I was trying to find a middle ground that might make a compromise possible. I agree that the section as it stands is problematic. Unless reliable sources about the Institute discuss the publications, they shouldn't be included. I think the section should probably be removed, except for the bit referenced to the SPLC, and then if people can find reliable secondary sources discussing the Institute that talk about controversial publications of theirs then they can add it in. But I'm not optimistic that much progress will be made while POV-warriors keep blocking change. Hopefully one of them will be removed if the AN/I thread is reclosed in favour of a topic ban. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. —sroc 💬 08:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of the policy to do with posthumous death states: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." I totally fail to see how this applies to the material you persist in removing, which is totally innocuous and indeed reports laudatory reports on Tavener early in his career. It clearly wasn't an issue while he was alive and certainly isn't while he's dead. The appropriate action would have been to tag the material asking for citations. Alfietucker (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting at least one edit by this "Vishy Anand" account, which obviously impersonates the defending world champion. I have submitted a block request at here. Please continue to help keep an eye out for any further acts of vandalism on his part, and let's place warnings as necessary. Thanks! --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 23:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your informed contributions to the WP:VA/E discussion. Would that there were more people like you. Alas, I've kind of given up hope on that front for now. Cobblet (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the original discussion Gabe suggested defaulting to remove, not keep. Nobody said anything for or against that idea at the time—I would've objected, but I was pretty new to the discussion at the time and didn't want to stop things from moving along. The issue was actually discussed a couple of weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Closing the #Regions discussion, but still it doesn't seem there's a consensus on what to do. Cobblet (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go refill the pot :) Things were getting a little too heated at WP:VA and WP:VA/E for my taste, and I was partly at fault, so I decided to take a break. I've spent a lot of time working on those lists the last few months, and while clearly much work remains to be done, I'm glad that at least we've made a lot of progress. Even if it ultimately amounts to nothing, I've found the whole exercise a lot of fun—I've read so many articles I would never have thought to, if it weren't for this project. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neljack! Haven't seen you on VA/E in a while – hope you've been having fun elsewhere on the 'pedia. Gizza has been trying to improve our coverage of law and we could use another pair of eyes for this rather specialized topic. If you've got a chance, would you mind taking a look? Happy editing, Cobblet (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a dispute resolution about this very same issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Please cease reverting and join the discussion there instead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss it someplace, I suggest you do. However, please do not edit war. I assure you, you will not come well out of it. And I found your comments on Overagainst's talk page about me unfortunate and judgmental. Please remember that everyone is capable of looking at contributions. Regards,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to offend you, you seem an earnest editor with content skills. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. We can consult experienced, uninvolved editors, if it is helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neljack reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a break pushing his button? While I agree with your BLP interpretation, you aren't helping matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 09:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a a new report on the ANI noticeboard regarding the block of Joefromrandb. TigerShark (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Clauson, 1st Baron Clauson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord of Appeal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your opinion on the alternate proposal to move the article in question to Confederate Arizona. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you commented in the earlier move discussion, I'm hoping you can also comment on Talk:Romani people in Croatia#Requested move 12 January 2014. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clarrie Grimmett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wellington Regional Stadium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• location and state of disrepair. The stadium was also built to provide a larger-capacity venue for [[One Day International] cricket matches, due to the [[Basin Reserve]] ground losing such matches to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow vital project member, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the almost 100 articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike, I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (I listed my ideas on my own talk page, here). Carlwev (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for contributing to the RfC. While I understand your answer to Q2 perfectly, it would be helpful if you could explain which sort of inconsistencies would be acceptable to you, in the discussion section below. In a few days we are going to have to figure out what the result means and I think this would make it easier for us. Thanks again, --John (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, John. That makes sense and I'm happy to do so - I was actually going to in the comment with my vote and then I realised it would go over the 20-word limit. It's getting late where I am, so I'll do it tomorrow. Neljack (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sambit Bal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• author.html?author=31;genre=119</ref> Before joining Wisden, he edited ''[[Gentleman magazine)|Gentleman]]'', a monthly features magazine published from Mumbai. He lives in Mumbai with his wife

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 April 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Owen Woodhouse, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thaddeus! Neljack (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Neljack :). It's good to see some old faces returning and contributing to the VA discussions again. I appreciate your efforts to improve the coverage of civil law jurisdictions. I'm not familiar enough to make suggestions easily in that area. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neljack,

I just wanted to say thanks for your steady work on the vital articles project level 4 list of 10,000 articles. I particularly admired your turning to a standard reference source to help prioritize the articles about sports figures. I look forward to reading your other nominations and comments in discussion. The list of 10,000 is improving greatly from its state on Meta with your help. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WeijiBaikeBianji! I really appreciate the great work you've been doing on biological articles. Referring to textbooks on the subject is a very good idea, particularly since it is an area where it can seem hard to assess what is vital and what isn't, with so many species, families, orders and classifications of various sorts to assess! Neljack (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your edit at Puncak Jaya. That list of "highest of's" has drawn my attention before, and to be honest, the paragraph still reads awkwardly, though I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "confusing".

'Highest of Australia (continent)' does seem redundant if it's also the highest of Oceania, but the reason it was there is because that particular distinction is what includes the peak in the Seven Summits list. There is no consideration in the list for Oceania. I suspect because of it being more of a region rather than a geological entity and it not being a traditional continent, etc.

So we can leave it out, unless in light of this you would want to put it back, or restructure how all this information is presented and then work the statement back in if it works. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Racerx11, thanks for the message. On reflection, I think I was too hasty in taking it out. It was just confusing the way it was written. I've reinserted it with an explanation of what is meant by the Australian continent, since many people tend to think of it as synonymous with Australia the country. Hope that looks all right! Regards, Neljack (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cook Islands general election, 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The [[Cook Islands Party]] retained its majority, winning 13 seats, while the [[Democratic Party (Cook Islands|Democratic Party]] won eight and the new [[One Cook Islands Movement]] won two.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A requested moves discussion in which you participated in Dec. 2013 has been reopened, at Talk:Mustang horse#Alternative proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To your arguments at ITN, I don't care, and your opposition has nothing to do with me or my support. Incredibly rude of you. Make your point and leave me out. (Notice this is not posted at ITN). μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say to me, say it here, as per the explanation at the top of my talk page I am watching here. (This does not mean you have to respond to this.) μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I didn't see that notice. I will repost my substantive reply below then. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am bemused by your complaint of rudeness. Pinging is frequently used when replying to another editor's comments. That is what I was doing here. My comment was a direct response to your comment, which supported featuring the phrase by drawing an analogy to 9/11. I proceeded to argue that the use of the equivalent phrase from 9/11 would equally have been a violation of NPOV, and thus the analogy did not support your case. So I'm not sure why you think my comment "has nothing to do with me or my support". However, if you do not want to be pinged in the the case of such replies, I will of course refrain from it in future. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the only thing that I meant was rude was the pinging. Disagreement on an ITN nomination doesn't merit that unless there's apolicy violation, and I don't object to you disagreeing with me. Appreciate it, and look forward to future agreements. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll take that on board for the future. I look forward to future agreements too, and I sincerely hope the current attempt at ANI to have you topic-banned from ITN - which I've opposed - comes to nothing. Neljack (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Kitts and Nevis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• t|_|ˌ|k|ɪ|t|s|_|æ|n|d|_|ˈ|n|iː|v|ɪ|s}}; also known as the '''Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis'''),<ref>Both the names Saint Christopher and Saint Kitts are given in the [http://pdba.georgetown.edu/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do not appreciate or agree with your twice now significantly edit/deleting of this article. You have twice failed to extend the normal courtesy of airing your concerns on the talk page and have failed to give any valid reasons for your one-sided and apparently rather high-handed authoritarian actions. You state that I cannot revert the article without 'consensus'. How would it be possible to approach and gain consensus with somebody who acts like this? This looks very much like edit warring and if you persist I shall raise this concern for arbitration. Limhey (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article you made a few minutes ago is great, but there's only one problem: you need to categorize your articles too. Philmonte101 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just dropping you a note because you previously participated in this RfC on the Campus Sexual assault Talk page. The dispute was never really resolved, in part because of a lack of participation. I've posted a new RfC that deals with the issue, and, if you have time comments would be appreciated! Nblund (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you have previously provided comment on the discussion in his article, I invite you now to please review and provide comment (if any) to the proposed alternatives located here. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to W. James Ware. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Colored page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neljack,

Scholarship applications for ESEAP Conference 2018 is now open!

ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities around the ESEAP regions. ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5-6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for the Wikimedia communities around the regions.

Full scholarships are subject to quotas, maximum two people per country and your country is eligible to apply, visit this page.

We also accept submissions of several formats, including:

• Workshop & Tutorial: these are presentations with a focus on practical work directed either to acquiring a specific skill or doing a specific task. Sessions are 55 minutes led by the presenters in a classroom space suitable for laptops and work.
• Posters: A2-size format to give news, share your community event/program, set out an idea, propose a concept, or explain a problem. The poster itself must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a suitable license.
• Short Presentation/Sharing talks: 10-15 minutes presentation on certain topic.

Deadline for submissions and scholarship applications is on 15 March 2018. If you have any question, don't hesitate to contact me or send your e-mail to eseap@wikimedia.or.id.

Best regards,

Wirjadisastra (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]