User talk:L235/Archive 6

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking time to help out here. You went above and beyond. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 21:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Wow, thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Says: Just type their name using plain text, and we will replace it with User-multi error: no username detected (help). in a way that does not notify the noninee. Minor detail----Nominee is miss-spelled. Can you fix? . Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies,   Done --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

So when we changed the title of our sandbox2 page to 'Richmond Nature Park', a heading came up stating the following just above our intro: "This sandbox is in the User talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template". Any suggestions for what to do about this? were not sure. Let me know when you can!Laurasweil (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  Resolved

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On 23 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ken Seymour, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Australian rules footballer Ken Seymour unofficially equalled the Australian record for the 110-yard breaststroke during a trial swim? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ken Seymour. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)

At the EotW Nom page you recently said, I pinky swear I'll stop nominating the flood of people that I have been recently.... Please reconsider and rescind your "pinky swear". Your nominations are a reflection of your involvement in your hard work as a clerk where you see editors in tense situations and, I would imagine, get a sense of "who" they are as WP editors. Your insightful nominations come from your special viewing-point. Thanks for all you do!!! . Buster Seven Talk 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: Happy to in a bit; it just seemed like there were a lot of accepted moms last time I checked. I know a lot of deserving editors though. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have hired a hall for all the legions of seconds that will most definitely show-up and have contacted a "ghost writer" to work on an acceptance speech. But....god forbid...what if no-one shows up??? What if, after two long weeks, I have to second my own nomination and then, in good conscious, reject it? How embarrassing will THAT be?? There will be no Award after-party   because I will not accept the nomination but I do graciously accept the thought behind it. Thank You, my friend.   . Buster Seven Talk 11:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

I suggest that you ask each of the editors to make a concise statement of what they think are the issues and remind them to comment on content, not contributors, by posting to WP:DRN. Do what any of the recent previous volunteers have done as examples. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I could use some help. I'd like to give old Henry a picture on his very own Wikipedia page Henry Westman Richardson The picture is owned by Library and Archives Canada and can be found here. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Current=False&Gender=&Item=f0fcb163-ee84-4c62-a63f-bfb73a0970ff&Language=E&MenuID=lists.senators.aspx&MenuQuery=http%3a%2fwww2.parl.gc.ca%2fParlinfo%2flists%2fsenators.aspx%3fLanguage&Ministry=&Name=richardson&Parliament=&Party=&Picture=False&PrimeMinister=&Province=&TermEnd= I know there are rules about copyright and so on but do not know what to do next. Many thanks. GMTEgirl 22:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 29 April 2015

@GMTEgirl: Well, since it is so old, copyright doesn't apply. I've added the image, let me know if it looks good or it needs adjusting. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :) GMTEgirl 10:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMTEgirl (talk • contribs)

Are you sure that the above template does not ping the editor? When I nominated Intothatdarkness the other day, he "thanked" me with Echo ... which surprised me. It should have been kept secret but he found out by getting pinged. Anyway, I want to assure myself that I'm doing things correctly. Now I did notice that I did not do Capital "U" in "User10|" but instead did lowercase "u' in "user10|". Is that why Editor Into got pinged? . Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: Oh dear. Yes, user10 pings if you add it in the same edit as you add a signature, similar to a normal link; you're supposed to use noping at first and change it later to user10. Sorry, that was unclear. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. No problem. So "no|ping" first...sign...then change to "User10|" in order to provide the links for vetting. Got it! . Buster Seven Talk 20:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. My apologies. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind invitation; at this time, due to constraints on my time I must decline. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this and agreed. What would be the best way to suggest that an arb (GW) recuse from actively voting rather than providing statements and evidence? — Ched :  ?  03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: Hi Ched, I replied at Special:Diff/660360990. Let me know if you have any further questions, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you — Ched :  ?  04:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind asking the committee what the plan is in their plans for the interaction ban for case pages. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have brought this request to the Committee's attention. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, shouldn't the tally at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather be 9/1/0/2 ? AGK, DQ and NF didn't express an opinion. - Sitush (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: You're correct, the count was off; I've corrected it to 9/1/0/3. There were three comments without votes. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)re

? Euryalus commented but later voted. I can only see two comments that were not converted to votes. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies again. Oops, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No big deal. I have just woken up wearing my pedant's hat ;) - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 

Hello L235, PhantomTech has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, when you contest speedy deletion, you can't remove deletion tag by yourself. You should write your consent on the talk page of the article and admins will decide does it worth keeping an article or not. Repeatedly removing deletion tag may get you blocked. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arthistorian1977: That is not correct because you are only disallowed from removing speedy deletion tags from pages you created yourself, per If this draft does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. Trust me, I know what I'm doing :) If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

See also, WP:CSD para. 5, Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. (And I am clearly not the creator.) Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've reached out to you a few times now about my draft Draft:Noah Cowan and I haven't heard a response. You previously stated that the language was not neutral enough. The text as it is written right now is compiled of facts about Noah Cowan's career with no embellishment or opinion. Do you have any example of language you could point me towards that would make it more "neutral"? I thought of it having a similar tone as articles such as: Robert J. Fisher and Michael Govan. Any help would be very appreciated. If you are too busy, if you could point me towards someone else that could help me, that would be great. Thank you! Filmfan39 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, that slipped my mind several times now. My sincerest apologies. Here are the most obvious parts:

• The article begins even with promotion and non-adherence with the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view: Noah Cowan was appointed Executive Director of the San Francisco Film Society in March 2014, where he oversees the Film Society’s expanding programs in exhibition, education and filmmaker services. Before joining the Film Society, Cowan was the Artistic Director of TIFF Bell Lightbox. This pushes the promotion and sounds just like what a paid mini-bio would start with. In addition, Wikipedia articles are to be encyclopedic, and generally start with "(article subject) is (short description)"; for example. "Noah Cowan is the Executive Director of the San Francisco Film Society" (as an example; you still need to make it neutral in tone.)
• The article continues to read like a praise book, with section titles such as Early Career: Toronto and New York and Later Career: Return to Toronto and San Francisco. Remember, encyclopedic articles must be neutral in tone.
• The entire article just seems to be basically a resume.

Keep in mind that I am a single editor, and I may be completely wrong (though I hope not). Maybe one of my talk page stalkers (er, watchers) (hint hint: Primefac) might like to chime in? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with L235. I think a slightly larger issue, however, is sourcing; there are large chunks of text that aren't supported by any references (such as Cowan being curator for the TIFF Bell Lightbox museum). If you cannot find references for such information, it should be removed. Incidentally, that might help your promotional issues, since a large proportion of the promo text is unsourced. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you so much L235 and Primefac for the feedback. It was really helpful and I think I have a better understanding now of the type of edits the article needed. I've gone through and cut out all language that I think could be read as not neutral, and I've also removed all of the titles. If you could look over the new edit, that would be really great! As for the sources, I've gone through and added a few more. All facts stated in the article are supported by those sources (that one you mentioned about Cowan being Artistic Director at TIFF Bell Lightbox is actually mentioned in several of them). If there is still a problem with the citations (maybe just the placement of them?) please let me know. Noah Cowan is a pretty prominent figure in the industry, so perhaps that is why some of the article sounds "promotional." I would like it to be similar to articles about similar figures, such as: Frank Daniel, Howard Stringer, or Bob Gazzale. Here is the latest draft: Draft:Noah Cowan. If there are still problems with my article, any help/advice is very much appreciated. Thank you! Filmfan39 (talk)

Hey L. I think it may have happened again. Todays nominator of Ymingbao used the template and so, most likely, the nominee was notified. Perhaps going forward, our instructions should not mention User|10 so that there is no confusion. You and I know and one of us can add it after the nomination has been made. Thanks, your supportive presence is important to me. . Buster Seven Talk 11:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Buster7, yes, please amend the instructions as you wish. I'm just getting back from an exhausting trip and have a lot of emails to respond to (per the note at the top of this talk page) so I won't be able to do anything for a while. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The door is locked. I think you need a "special key" or a handprint or blood sample or some other way to elavate your stature above the "maddening crowd". . Buster Seven Talk 00:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me know what edits you need made, and I'll make them. The best way is to copy it to a userspace page, make your edits there, and link me to it. (Alternatively, make an {{edit request}} with your role as a coordinator of WikiProject Editor Retention.) Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 

[Breathing out a light spray of {{cookie}} crumbs as she speaks :] Darwinbish has stolen your cookie from Bishonen's page! The cookie made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for leaving it where she could reach it. Spread the WikiLove by giving her more {{cookie}}s, unless you want her boys to pay you a visit!

@Bishonen and Darwinbish: LOL. Happy editing! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, L, when you get a moment can you double-check the word counts for the evidence statements. I was getting different totals and now I'm about to adjust them. But having you double-check them would ease some minds, I think. I was using http://wordcounter.net but the tool in the clerks procedures is http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml so that's what I'm using now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}. Your counts were all within 10 words of my counts, so I didn't change anything. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While mention has been made about conversations @ WP:WER I think it best not to get involved in an already crowded case. However, should more be made or mentioned about WER or EotW or members/clerks etc., I wonder if you might ping me. Thanks.. I hope it is not necessary.. Buster Seven Talk 00:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: I'm sorry, that's really not the role of the clerks of the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I failed to consider that my request may be inappropriate. . Buster Seven Talk 05:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and open Economic history of Chile for discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Remind the participants to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not contributors. If they start commenting on each other, they need to be cautioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the participants has posted a statement, and has a concern about tags. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you are active in policy matters, you might see if you want to standardize how cases/requests are listed. Declined case requests are listed newest cases at the top, which makes sense given the bottom (old) to top (new) chronology of the page. But in the main case box, there should probably be one system, either newest>oldest or oldest>newest and right now it's a mix of both. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: This should probably go on the clerks' list, because it's not something I can decide unilaterally; my personal opinion is newest>oldest. My apologies on my last mistake. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No apology necessary. When I removed the Alternative Medicine request, I had to reorder the remaining requests so the instructions have been ignored for a while. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Liz, since you're here, could you remove the "From the Arbitration Committee" from your announcement at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2/Proposed_decision#Proposed_decision_date, since it wasn't something "ratified by the Arbitration Committee" ... "by formal vote", per the mailing list? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Always a stickler for details. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry, if you don't want me to in the future, let me know.   --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a sort of related point, and I don't know where to suggest it: When the Arbs pass a motion like "I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended", could the text of said remedy, or at least a link to it, be included? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Well, we don't usually like to modify the "historical record", but I'll see if I can link to those in a bit. For the future, the best way to remind us is probably to leave a note at WP:ACCN, preferably before the motion receives majority support. Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you need to change the historical record, but if you see something similar in the future, then perhaps you could suggest a link. I don't really follow ArbCom pages, so I'm unlikely to notice in time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Zeb (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@ObsequiousNewt: Hi, great to see you! (In the interest of privacy, mind continuing the conversation on IRC?) Also, you probably want to have at least one link to your enwikipedia userpage in your signature, otherwise Sinebot gets a bit agitated.   Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mohyla103 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Top 100 Mountains (Taiwan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently, you rejected my article on the "Top 100 Mountains (Taiwan)" by claiming that the list itself is not notable. Since I assume you don't live in Taiwan, I thought I would clarify something that you might have misunderstood.

I realize you are probably very busy reviewing and rejecting many articles so when you see "Top XXX" you might just assume it's a meaningless list. If you read the article, you will see this is NOT a list of the 100 highest mountains in Taiwan. This is a set of 100 peaks chosen out of hundreds as a goal for hikers in Taiwan, specifically because these peaks have something special about them, not because of their height. It is the Bible for hikers in Taiwan and the most notable anything in the Taiwanese hiking world. It has been around essentially unchanged for around 45 years. I realize this is not a very notable list in the English-speaking world (although many hikers are aware of it anyway), but it is certainly notable in certain circles. It's for this reason that it has its own page in Chinese: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%99%BE%E5%B2%B3 on Wikipedia already. My page was essentially a direct translation of that page (as I noted in the Talk page) including all its sources, with a few extra pieces of information that I added for completeness, also sourced.

If it is notable enough to have its own page in Chinese, and my page is essentially the same, why is it not notable enough to have its own page in English?

As supporting evidence for my claim, I see this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colorado_fourteeners is an acceptable article on Wikipedia. This is essentially the same as my article. It is a list of famous mountains that is RELEVANT because it is an agreed-upon goal within the hiking community in the area. It is not necessarily designated by an official source but it certainly exists by convention. In fact, I would say the fourteeners is even less relevant than my page, as it is literally just a list of mountains simply based on their height, whereas the Top 100 in Taiwan is based on a variety of factors agreed upon by the hiking community.

Again, if the Colorado fourteeners is an acceptable article and notable enough, despite being localized to Colarado, why is the Top 100 here in Taiwan not notable enough?

I will try to add more outside references to show you its notability as per the comments left, and will do my best to find some in English. However, I wanted to share the above to give you a local perspective on the issue before I resubmit the article. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Mohyla103 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just a comment about one of the points/question you brought up. While the subject in question may meet Chinese Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, that doesn't necessarily mean that it meets English Wikipedia's policy about notability. Policy differs across the different languages of the project.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mohyla103: Looking at this further, List of Colorado fourteeners (another point you bring up) has 195 references and is extremely well sourced. Draft:Top 100 Mountains (Taiwan) has 5 references, which I can't read (without running them through a translator program) because they are in Chinese, so I can't speak to their quality. As User:L235 brought up when they declined your request, "add[ing] citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject", would establish notability and clear this for creation.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mohyla103: Looks like it was accepted by Primefac. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I just looked through the temporary injunction that you posted at WP:AN. Is there a reason that the temporary injunction isn't posted in the temporary-injunction section of the case page itself? I felt like adding it, but WP:IAR doesn't seem to apply to arbitration, so I didn't think it would help if I corrected the issue myself. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: My apologies, now {{done}}. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To follow up, the arbitrators had made it clear on the mailing list that it was important that the injunction be implemented immediately- the exact words were Urgent clerk action needed! The motion[1] is now passing and is to be enacted immediately- so I made the edits too quickly and forgot to double check. My apologies, won't happen again. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'm not a party, so it won't affect me; I was just afraid that if I added the chunk in question, I'd (1) be reverted because I wasn't an arbitrator or clerk, and/or (2) become a party to the case because I'd edited one of its documents. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we're a bit protective of the space, because it's pretty clear what to do in case of issues with the page, and allowing edits to it quickly turns into a slippery slope. Thanks for letting me know. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Would the clerk read and understand WP:DENY and then agree to redelete what I deleted already. Also, the archive.is stuff crosses the line. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.194.32 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is already reviewing my provisional action. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, L235. {{resolved|1=Committee reviewed and actioned. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)}}

Regarding this edit [1], you are of course correct that it was high time for it to be removed, but as it says both on the CENT template itself in in the notice you should have seen when opening the edit window, when removing a discussion it is expected it be moved to the archive, not just deleted. (don't worry about it, I already went ahead and did so, just thought you should know for future reference) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Goodness, my apologies. Thanks for correcting it! Best regards, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

ah well i disagree but its been deleted so like , ah well etc, the person who the page was about liked it, so i dont think i come off looking stupid. i thought it was important as a page because of the fame of the person included. so this experience has put me off wikipedia, so just a big pile of oh well and i do something else with my life haha! i cant be bothered to contest something, it would just make me bitter. when i tell him whats happened, ahhh its just sad really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik hb (talk • contribs) 00:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nik hb: I've read this five times now and still have no clue what you're asking me. Mind clarifying? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this is in reference to Drcarlsonalbion, which you (correctly) nominated for speedy deletion back in February. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, with regard to "Continuing hatted discussion without prior permission; also not relevant to coming to a decision", is it worth putting my note (which was not intended to continue the prior discussion but suggest an alternative) in its own subsection? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Hi Fæ, I would probably have hatted the section as not relevant to assisting the ArbCom in coming to a decision if you had posted a new one; you are free to post to individual editors' talk pages individually with suggestions, or if you receive permission to post it from any other arbitrator or clerk, I will defer. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'll consider whether it is worth the risk of being accused of canvassing, or just wait until the right time to go ahead and start a !vote elsewhere myself. Email is a good option to avoid bad faith allegations of grave-dancing or worse. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir,

Please see the edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history how WP neutrality is being violated by Human3015 and co using different tactics. Your justice will be required. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.121.0 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the person to ask about that, sorry. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thank you for being so welcoming and so courteous in answering my questions. Vordrak (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vordrak, are you sure you meant to give this to me? I mean, you personally interpreted my comments as threatening journalists with sanctions. Let me know if this was left for me on accident or a joke or similar. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

L235 not a joke. I thought you were generally civil in a complex and acrimonious matter. I did make the remark about "threatening journalists" but I noticed that you did explain it was a standard template and also removed your comment about "self-promotion" from the PD talk page. The only constructive criticism I would make with regard to civility is that you have twice ascribed bad faith - once in the "self-promotion" remark and once in the "grave dancing" remark on Chase Me's page. As it happens after the latter comment another long-standing user responded to you on that page (albeit neglecting to ping you) saying they thought my request reasonable.

However aside from that I thought you very civil and gave you a barn star. Vordrak (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vordrak: Thanks. Not that it much matters, but can you remind me what "grave dancing" remark you were talking about? Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Oops. Further demonstrating my newbie status in the latter remark I somehow mixed you up with Liz. :O Corrected as above. Vordrak (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

the show kung fu panda legends of awesomeness is on hiatus and there might not be an explanation but people who visit the page need to know what's going one, and why hasn't the airdate been announced ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.212.24 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you have been made a full clerk! I missed that announcement. Well-deserved as you seem to be on top of all case developments. Congratulations! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE is the reference for my edit. Hi how are you? It was explained to me in clear terms that according to Wiki policy that its not an employee directory and that the air jocks have to have a Wiki page in order to be listed. I did like you did at WPGC and WVEE go to those and see how they have been edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donta1974 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Donta1974: You need to make that clear in your edit summary. Unexplained content removal is a common type of vandalism and is usually reverted immediately. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added a source to my edit. I don't think that rewording something that was inappropriately and incorrectly represented as "the only way" to "one way" requires a citation, indeed, I was not the one to add said information originally. It is well-known by anyone that knows what IPv6 is that "::" represents an arbitrary number of zeroes in an address, so "::" would mean the entire address was zeroes. However, one could also write it as "0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000" or "0000:0000:0000:0000::0000:0000" or any number of other ways. Please avoid being so overzealous with your (good-faith) reversions in the future, and also preferably add a notice to the editor's talk page so that they may amend their edits. Thank you. --104.129.196.61 (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification – I had seen that and meant to thank you for those. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sent message to admin to resolve I have already been accused of valdalism which is untrue again WP:LISTPEOPLE backs the edit up.Donta1974 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donta1974 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, L235,
You've had a busy afternoon! I was wondering if the date for this case is correct (on page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015#June). I haven't closed a case and filed there but I think it is the date of closing...or the date of the vote to close? You will have earned your break! Have fun, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Liz: Yeah, it's the day of the close. I put "May" instead of "June"... My bad! Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it now. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, everything went so smoothly and quickly, I'll pattern any future closes I do after you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement has User:Courcelles listed as both active and recused. Probably want to look into it. Monty₈₄₅ 02:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: Oops, now fixed. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue what this is about? Could you clarify? Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Replied at your talk L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You are doing a great job. I do have a few questions on my talk page here: User_talk:Chillum#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Arbitration_enforcement. Chillum 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You are doing a difficult job well. I made a few comments to the compact double message I received on my talk where I am a little bolder than elsewhere. Probably not your fault: why do arbitration messages have to come defying style guide? We are not supposed to link from headers, not even to link from anything bold. Background color is not good in term of accessibility. - A request archived with 100k+ characters, right? - The thought crossed my mind that Wikipedia might be better without arbcom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Hi, and thanks for your patience. Regarding the "style guide" part, I would personally be happy to start a discussion with the clerks, though I do note that, in practice, almost all of the MOS is not applied in non-articlespace. For example, two sections down on your very own talk page, the section heading is linked, and one down, on a standardized template, several links are shown in bold. Regarding the rest, I cannot comment as they are outside the remit of the clerks. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You talk about a section header on my talk that I have not redacted yet but will ;) (Recently I eliminated a name from a header because I didn't wan't it to appear on people's watchlists.) - In short: the messages yelled at me, and I hope that style can eventually be improved. - Another improvement possibility for the future: I received this notice about my restrictions in 2013, telling me "to better conduct themselves". I found the "themselves" almost more insulting than the rest of the message: everybody knows that I am a woman. - The restriction and admonishment: I understood that the arbs had to present something after weeks of looking, and played the part without protest ;) - It was Eric, btw, who prepared me well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Hi, the thing is, the clerks don't control the wording of decisions, so that is something that I can't fix - you should bring that up to the ArbCom as a whole, probably at WT:AC. In fact, I can't singlehandedly change clerks' procedures either; questions about those should go to WP:ACCN, or emailed to clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org. Let me know if there's anything I personally can help you with. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Never, ever, post spam like this [2] on my talk page again. Consider yourself permanently banned from my talk page unless it is response to admin actions. As you can blatantly see [3] I have made no admin actions in respect of that case. Pedro :  Chat  07:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pedro, your user contributions tell a different story, since you did contribute to an ANI case directly related to this. Undo the edit as spam if you feel it is spam, but there's no need to be uncivil about it. _{as a postscript, you actually can't unilaterally ban someone from your talk page.} Primefac (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: - I never said I didn't contribute to the discussion. I said I never took any admin actions. Please do re-read my above and then feel free to apologise - or better yet just go away. Any way, to be fair, this isn't really L235's fault - this is the fault of Roger Davies. L235 is just the hapless messenger. Pedro :  Chat  11:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pedro: You seem to misunderstand why you where informed, as under section 2: "During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case." , anyone who commented on the AN/I thread got the message. This was by motion of the Arbitration Committee and L235 was informing users of the current restriction that they have, as per policy. If you have a problem, talk to/email the arbs, don't go around being uncivil to clerks. And also, as @Primefac: has said, you can not ban someone unilaterally from your talk page anyhow. TheMesquito^buzz 12:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You pretty much can ban people from your talk page, with some exceptions. So Pedro is entitled to request that. But agree with the above, L235 is just doing what they were asked by the Committee. I got one of the notices too, can't say I welcome it but it's the motion that was passed. Blame Arbcom (hey, blame me if you like) but L235 isn't responsible for the wording or the decision to send it. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pedro please see WP:CIVIL. (If you need someone to talk to, I'd be glad to sit down with you over a cup of WP:TEA, just let me know. :^)) Kindest regards, E. Lee (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@TheMesquito: I understand fully the content of the message thank you, and I understand fully who received it and why. @Elee: - thanks for blue linking CIV ..........sigh.......... And ultimately, yes, I probably shouldn't shoot the messenger - however if the messenger just slavishly send passive aggressive, sanctimonious ridiculous messages perhaps the messenger needs to reconsider what value they are bringing to Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pedro: reading the message, I can't detect any hint of passive aggressiveness, and I believe L235 sent that message as part of his duties as a clerk. E. Lee (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Pedro: You've made several personal attacks and uncivil remarks about me on my own talk page now, which I'd ask you strike. Also, although I will definitely make a good faith effort to steer clear of your talk page except for inquiries about your administrative actions and required administrative notices, you will continue to receive arbitration-related messages from me in my capacity as a clerk. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do point out where I've made "several personal attacks" L235 because I haven't. I haven't made any comments about persons - just their actions. Yes, I have however been less than civil. I won't be striking any remarks though; you can clearly just delete / archive this as you see fit. And you can post all you like on my talk about ARBCOM but it will be deleted on sight unless it has relevance. I refuse to support the bullying actions of people like Davies. Anyway, unless you wish to actually hand out an NPA diff (you can't) then this conversation is done. Stay away please. Pedro :  Chat  21:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked by parties (see my talk page) to review this and give a third opinion on the "so called argument". Frst off, telling someone to get off and away from ones userpages is not CIVIL one bit, definitely not from an administrator, who should be role models. Secondary all L235 did was leave a mass-message on your user page. Would you tell a bot to bugger off if it left you a notice? No. Please retract these message, because this is an admin unbecoming and on the edge of being real unfriendly behaviour towards other users. Telling the messenger to not leave messages is and then tell them they are blocked from it is...I dont know any more... Well that's my 0.02 SEK. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt in case anyone was wondering, I did not ask Josve05a to comment here, though I was on IRC when he was asked to. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@ L235. Why do you put up with this crap? . Buster Seven Talk 19:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: I may or may respond over email, but certainly not on-wiki L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 

A tag has been placed on File:Countdown.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Thank you very much for fixing that. Cheers! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jgarciahernandez (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RS MINERVE software platform (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear L235, thanks for taking time in reading my article (declined). I’ve improved my article as better as I could, being neutral and taking into account your notes.

I guess you will not review again my article and I only wanted to thank you for the time you spend in articles reviews.

Not need to answer me. Bye!

Javier G.

Jgarciahernandez (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression you're the clerk managing that case.

I've moved all my post-Preliminary material to the talk page. Since I'm not necessarily an Involved Party in the exact dispute I might even be subject to the 500-word limit, and I'm pretty sure my material, even after editing down, would go over the 1000 limit anyway. These limits are often counterproductive. Much of what I've had to say is relevant (esp. with regard to the SPACKlick vs. Quack Guru material, but otherwise as well). Not sure whether there's a need to integrate any of it into the Evidence page. Do the Arbs just totally ignore the Evidence talk page? Meh. It's uncomfortably hot where I am right now in meatspace, and this is making me irritable enough to WP:DGAF. I'm frustrated that rules intended to muzzle will-not-shut-up ranters is preventing people from meaningfully contributing to a process that may seriously affect various editors, and which will (or at least should) have a long-term impact on how WP deals with external lobbying, but my patience for bureaucracy has expired today. The fact that my original long Preliminary post has been hatted so I can't edit it down and make room increases the irony to a level beyond my current tolerance limit. "You are not permitted to be verbose. You are also enjoined from brevity."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, my apologies for the delay in responding. I'll address your points in order, if that's fine with you:

• That is correct, you are subject to the 500-word limit, but requests to become a party are almost always granted, and requests to extend the limits are often granted as well;
• To be clear, the preliminary statements do not count towards the limits. I'm sorry that the templates are rather unclear; I will work on clarifying the notices and directions for future cases;
• The arbitrators normally do pay attention to the talk pages. I'm not sure what the deal is with this case, but I will certainly bring this up;
• I sympathize with your frustration, and I'm sorry, but I am really not in a position to change anything myself.

I understand that arbitration can be a stressful and/or irritating process, and I sincerely appreciate your patience up to this point. I will try to resolve your unresolved concerns as soon as possible. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a special process/place for requesting to be a party? I don't mind being one in this case. PS: Thanks for your patience, and I didn't mean to vent at you, of course; it's a WP:PROCESS vs. WP:BUREAUCRACY thing; ArbCom needs to rethink the lopsided balance they've enacted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Oops, dropped the ball here again. No, there's no specific process other than making a request on the talk page. It looks like the arbs are going to be a bit busy due to the new ARC, so unfortunately it might take a while. My apologies on the delayed response. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've made a rough draft of a template to be used for the preliminary statements to hopefully make it clear that they are exempt from evidence limits at User:L235/ArbClerk/Templates/Preliminary top and User:L235/ArbClerk/Templates/Preliminary bottom - you can see them in use at User:L235/ArbClerk/Templates, last collapsed box. Any thoughts/suggestions? Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Chimp says "four thumbs up".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  Thanks for hatting the IP's contribution to the e-cig workshop page. I'm afraid one aspect of its contribution escaped the hat: the proposed topic ban for SPACKlick is still visible.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I'm still trying to figure out whether I have the authority to hat it, as taken by itself there's not anything plainly disruptive about it. I'll think about it a bit more. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with the Malik case. Right now, to me anyway, it looks like the Motion is passing, but the case apparently isn't, which might indicate that the motion to open a somewhat unrelated case is actually passing. Maybe. I think. Are things always this, um, confusing, for you clerks? John Carter (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: We're allowed to use common sense, you know  . Anyways, when a motion passes under a case request, the case request is said to have been "resolved by motion" and so the votes to accept or decline the case request don't actually matter, it's just the motion. Anyways, the motion isn't even passing yet, so I'll worry about it tomorrow :P. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I moved the clarification request from the case pages to the amendment and clarification page. I didn't name anyone else as being involved or directly affected. If it's standard procedure to do so in a situation like this, please let me know. I'm asking what ArbCom meant in 2011, so should I notify the people who were ArbCom members at that time?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you have already redacted the material the IP that follows me around posted. Is there any way of having it not appear in the TOC? Apologies if this is an inappropriate venue for this requestSPACKlick (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: If you would like, feel free to switch the level-3 headings to {{fake heading}}, if you're concerned about that that much. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Fake heading"? Surely the Arbitration Committee is supposed to be impartial. The description just about sums SPACKlick up. At 14:12 on 10 July he posted

Undid involved editor reverting close of discussion If you wish to challenge the close please use WP:CloseChallenge as a reference.

SPACKlick should not have been given licence to make this change per the very reason he cites. Would you please refer the matter to the Committee for a ruling. Also (and I don't know if you can handle this yourself) points 6 and 7 should not have been hatted because they are directly in issue in the case. Also in issue is the request for a siteban for SPACKlick. I don't think this should have been hatted either. A similar request for QuackGuru has been accepted and I don't see why SPACKlick should get special privileges. 86.191.194.15 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

86.191.194.15, I gave him permission to take a completely uncontroversial action as a supplement to my action. The sole effect of SPACKlick's action was to remove your sections from the TOC. I cannot and will not discuss or debate the merits of this case. As for you, you are currently an arbitration clerk-sanctioned user, using several IP addresses to avoid scrutiny in violation of WP:SOCK. I will not waste time and bring my action before the Committee for review, and if you choose to do so, I guarantee you that you will not get very far. (In any event, if you want to, you can email arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As I commented yesterday, the Arbitration Committee is supposed to be impartial. I don't think that a clerk insinuating that an editor is a "sock" citing a policy which does not seem to be applicable can fairly be called that. The policy appears to apply to registered editors editing logged out, not unregistered editors. It does not make registered editors into "socks". Everyone has failed to log in at some time or another so you are saying that everyone is a "sock". There's no compulsion to do it [4].

More to the point, the exclusion of directly relevant evidence strikes at the fairness of the arbitration process itself. In the interests of justice courts consider all evidence, even evidence improperly obtained. If you were QuackGuru how would you feel? 86.191.194.15 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

First, please try to edit this page. You will see error messages.

Second, the lists of active arbitrators for Israel-Palestine 3 return similar errors. Something is wrong somewhere. I assume that you don't want a retired software tester writing long screen shots. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I traced it back to Module:UserLinks, but I couldn't find anything past that. It just got fixed - I'm assuming it was something in the backend. Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235. Thank you for the ArbCom notification.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: Heh, this might be the first time I've actually been thanked in writing for a notification other than by a clerk or arbitrator. Remember that I'm just a clerk and it's ArbCom who actually made the decision. Cheers! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You're performing an important task for the project. I hope to not be the last regular user to thank you for the work that you do here. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is 500 words limit on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence a strict rule? I've recently started to edit but there are a few issues I believe should be discussed. Given the last time this happened was 5 years ago, I would like more text. I believe the limit for parties should suffice. Thanks, Settleman (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's up to the drafters. (ping) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Settleman (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like your edit restored the section header, but also removed some other stuff. Is it okay if I restore the other stuff?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I'm sorry about that. Please restore it. Thanks!   L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the mercifully quick response.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No prob. That makes two mistakes of mine clerking in one half-hour block... (the other one being this). Sorry again! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Whoever thinks a faultless Piece to see, Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be." Alexander Pope  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a purely technical question for you about the word limit for the opening statements at the GMO ArbCom case. If I put parts of my statement inside of something like {{cot}}, does that satisfy the requirement, or should I actually delete material? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: That's at the discretion of the clerk doing the enforcing until/unless an arb says differently; however (not on behalf of the Committee, but still in my role as a clerk), I'd strongly urge you to delete instead of collapse =. You are free to delete the currently collapsed section; that would get you down to (by my quick count) 516 words, which is close enough. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)