Archives

The Archives

Removal of his country picture and court record is a valid external link. It is validated by the state of Utah itself, and you need to stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [1]. -WarthogDemon 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, the County Arrest picture of him, and the data there are verified by the state of Utah, it is the Utah County Jail website. It is a valid link, please stop removing this link or you will be reported for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repled here: [2] -WarthogDemon 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a tad vague, so clarified: [3]. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I would probably do an AfD. Some One (maybe two) of the bands listed have articles, so it could be in the gray area. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [4]. -WarthogDemon 03:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Yup. Stewboss was about the band. It seems to be mentioned in a few other articles here and there. And the other may be Bardo (band), but kind of hard to tell. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [5] -WarthogDemon 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Well, an AfD was opened on the article. A couple of Deletes so far. But if you can find the sources, perhaps you can rescue the article? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [6]. -WarthogDemon 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Probably not. The first one is more or less an ad, so doesn't establish notability. The second is a fairly trivial mention of the band and then Jano Janosik has even less mention. I think it's going to be tough to find enough references to make an individual article about him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [7]. -WarthogDemon 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I suspect that was where article was headed. And you don't need my opinion on resurrecting the article. =) You have a good sense of what should and shouldn't be an article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's been a change in policy re. AfD, but I thought I'd err on the side of caution and point out the reason why the thing should have been deleted. Seems like someone agreed with my rationale.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I accidentally undid what you did, as I was trying to undo another editor's faulty wikilinks. Apologies if I did. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [8]. -WarthogDemon 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw by your recent contribs that you have recently been removing the French spacing from Today's Featured Articles. According to the Manual of Style, both double or single spacing is acceptable: "The number of spaces following the end of a sentence makes no difference on Wikipedia because web browsers condense any number of spaces to just one. However, editors may use any spacing style they are comfortable with in Wikipedia." As the major contributor of Flocke, today's TFA, I prefer two spaces after a full stop, and tend to write entire articles in that way; with that in mind, I've reverted your recent edit to the page. Others may feel the same in the future, and simply revert your painstaking changes, so you may want to desist since the MOS is against you. Just a suggestion. María (habla conmigo) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [9]. -WarthogDemon 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take your tone as hostile and did not intend mine as such, either; I apologize if it came off that way. My comment was intended as a suggestion -- hence the "just a suggestion" note at the end, right? Double vs. single spacing makes no difference in how an article is perceived by a reader, but it's a pain to write an article in a specific way (and to maintain it a specific way), depending on one's personal style preferences, and then have someone not previously affiliated with the work step in and change things to a separate style without any reason given or discussion opened. I'm a picky content editor, and you're not the first who has changed my double spacing to single for whatever reason; however, you're the first I've seen consistently doing so to TFAs. I'm not sure how familiar you are with article writing, but as with other certain aspects of a page -- infobox or no infobox, citation templates or freehand references, British or American spelling -- it's all a matter of what the major contributors are comfortable working with. Double spacing, although it may be minor in comparison to the other aspects I've listed, falls under the ambiguous category of "the MOS doesn't say, so I choose to do it this way". As far as article size issues, I would agree with your point (that removing double spacing lowers kilobites and increases readability) if it were not for the fact that, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be implementing an arbitrary style change without taking into account the size of the TFAs. Flocke, for example, is one of the smallest FAs in regards to readable prose, and certainly poses no size issues. It isn't exactly William Shakespeare, is it? ;)

Sorry for the lengthy response. I may have been the first to bring your attention to the matter, but how many of your double-spacing-to-single-spacing changes have been removed? Have you commented on the talk page of these articles to discuss how the major contributors feel about double spacing as opposed to single spacing? What I'm getting to, really, is that double spacing is my preference, and the preference for many other contributors out there, and if you have valid points to make against it, perhaps you should begin a discussion about the issue before changing every TFA on the mainpage. Again, that's just a suggestion. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [10]. -WarthogDemon 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are not vandalism because it talks about how many professional wins does each player have. The (3) indicates that the player has three wins, and you can see the list of victories below the headings of the wins section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.32.98 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [11]. -WarthogDemon 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I think the CNBC and New York Times articles establish the topic's notability. The article is indeed a mess and needs major cleanup. As the IP who added the article tags to it said: "so many problems..." The style is wrong in the Basic Rules and Tricks, the Origin section should be towards the top, and the list of "Masters" should probably be completely removed since it is unreferenced, doesn't establish any of their notability, and probably more importantly, doesn't give any context at all (Former Butter Master? Umm, okay...). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WarthogDemon. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied here: [12]. -WarthogDemon 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing here: [13]. -WarthogDemon 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore: [14]. -WarthogDemon 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...again. I see my bureaucrat vandal has returned. Not sure what is up with that, but whatever. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and again. Sockpuppet blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take little kb space and can be eliminated in one edit, e.g. using a macro replace in Wordpad, whereas deleting them in several edits only clutter article history and watchlists. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [15]. -WarthogDemon 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I had said on the UAA page was correct, except that the proper term is "hidden", not "locked". There is a log of all of the account hiding somewhere on meta, but when I went to look for it I couldn't find it. Sorry. I believe Popups will always return the correct "blocked" message even after an account has been hidden ... it's what I use ... though I can't promise 100% accuracy as I've never asked anyone who would know. Also if it's OK with you I'm going to remove the section you placed on my talk page as I think we would be better off if he had never existed. —Soap— 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [16]. -WarthogDemon 03:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok. --123onlyyouhimandme (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. -WarthogDemon 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading comments on a user talk page where you introduced yourself in this manner. Then you offered insight which correctly improved the sentence at issue. From my perspective I recognized you as a potential asset and wondered if you would avail yourself to user requests to review text? If in fact you enjoy offering such a critique, I will almost certainly call upon you in the future to review text appendages! In fact you can analyze this paragraph, which I have written in the style I generally use, and advise where I may have erred. Thank you.My76Strat (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the answer is no, as opposed to no, thank you.My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [17]. -WarthogDemon 03:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I do not have anything at this time, but if you are willing, when I do, I would like to perhaps call on you. I apologize if my comment above gave you negative feelings. It was intended to gently nudge you in that direction and I am sure it was not warranted. Again Thank you!My76Strat (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Warthogdemon. I reverted that edit as, it appears that the template was being used in a way other than its intended purposes. The user in question was repeatedly warned for vandalism (level 4, not at a level 1), and was given a cookie by another user in a act of "assuming good faith" (which, to be quite honest was a bit ridiculous in this case). The pattern of edits from the account is clearly that of a VOA/troll, so I reverted. But no, cookies are not bad. See User talk:Active Banana#Well for my message. —Tommy2010 02:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message about this page. Please see my comment following your entry, and please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any more questions. Talk to you soon.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [18]. -WarthogDemon 05:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mono 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the troll on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and again. We won't be seeing that account again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Hard to say, really. There's a claim to notability with the Indian Railways award, but my quick look around for further information on that presents nothing explaining exactly what the award is. Placing the article under an AfD would be fine. The notability appears to be questionable. As for the COI, I would AGF and leave that part out. The editors involved in the article have similar, but not identical names.

Funny thing is that I edited the article two years ago trying to clean up a few things after cleaning up spam. Back then, I did a horrible job of fixing the formatting, but this time I did better. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages may be deleted under general CSD criteria; criteria such as G11 (blatant advertising) and G12 (blatant copyright infringement) are particularly relevant. Removing the speedy template will hinder the deletion of this spam page (though given its nature, it's possible it may simply be deleted by an admin later anyway), so please revert your removal of this template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've self-reverted; thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [19]. -WarthogDemon 18:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: It could be deleted. I would say a proposed deletion would suffice. It would not qualify under CSD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Inglewood, Mecklenburg County, Virginia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inglewood, Mecklenburg County, Virginia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: The list is at List of Case Closed episodes (season 7). If you of the article, you see the {{:List of Case Closed episodes (season 7)}} transclusion. The tricky part of that article is that it uses the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. Very tricky. I can't say that I've seen that before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [20]. -WarthogDemon 07:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: No problem. I learned something new, though it took me awhile to figure out what <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> could be used for. Like the help says, it isn't use very often. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bloodbeasts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [21] -— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs)

Looks OK to me -difficult to tell 'good faith' vs. 'bad faith' with some of these edits... the FuR looks good to me! Skier Dude (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page the other day. Long time, no see! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [22]. -WarthogDemon 03:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello WarthogDemon! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Er, um . . . thanks? >_> -WarthogDemon 19:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. That was a sockpuppet account from vandalism a long time ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [23]. -WarthogDemon 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: And here I thought the gap between edits with the sockpuppet you reverted was long... I blocked the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Dunno what happened. Various IPs are unhappy with the deletion of outcome of the AfD on this person. I got involved when I deleted the orphan talk page post of another IP requesting the article not be deleted after the AfD was closed. I have no idea why this IP decided that dumping a copy of the deleted article into my talk page would do any good. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell do you think you're doing by undoing my edit. In Albanian the name is Myfit in English it is Mufid. I am Albanian I should know. Do not delete something without having knowledge. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liakaaha (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [24] and I hope I remember how to do this. -WarthogDemon 01:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Mosher, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're an experienced editor with what looks like an honorable track record on Wikipedia. It is very honest of you to declare a secondary personal connection. I would imagine there wil be no problem adding well sourced, balanced information to the article. However, COI is a big issue on Wikipedia at the moment and some other editors love to jump up and down upon anyone with a whiff of COI. You're probably as good a judge as me on the best way forward here. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I would leave it where it is as that appears to be his common name. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I see that you had it deleted already. I know next to nothing about The Wikipedia Adventure. I haven't looked into at all. I suspect that whatever pages are created will remain until you ask for it to be deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yuki Saito (pitcher, born 1988) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{nihongo|'''Yuki Saito'''|斎藤 佑樹|Saitō Yūki|extra=born June 6, 1988 in [[Nitta, Gunma|Nitta]] (part of the special city of [[Ota, Gunma|Ota]], [[Gunma Prefecture|Gunma]], [[Japan]]}} is a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it? I think? -WarthogDemon 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Verny, France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Verny (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) 08:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Hazhk set the redirect, but did not remove all of the content. There wasn't much there before and most of what is in Methodism#Nigeria is in the old revision. You can ask Hazhk about why they didn't leave the article entirely as a redirect, but I suspect it was just an oversight (not the Wikipedia meaning of "oversight"; the common dictionary meaning). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the ORSC entry claiming it wasn't notable. This Is why it's notable it's ht official opposition.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/1998/becky-burr-associate-administrator-ntia-international-affairs-sends-letter-intern

We got a call from the white house and were asked to meet Magaziner in New York. We had a lot to do with what led up to this and no history of the DNS is complete without it.

One of the principles (Brian Reid) was the person that paid for development of the BIND software while at Dec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs79 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was never deleted. It was instead redirected by User:Scheinwerfermann, so I suggest you bring it up with him/her. -WarthogDemon 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That person quit.

Again, ORSC was instrumental in the formation of ICANN and the history of the early dns if for no other reason than the early developers of it were part of the ORSC effort that was in turn recognized as significant by the government in the letter enabling icann the link to which is above. Tnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs79 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WarthogDemon,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WarthogDemon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WarthogDemon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WarthogDemon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Woodridge, North Dakota has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough notable content. Not enough Refs. Propose to move to Draftspace.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jimj wpg (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here: [25]. -WarthogDemon 07:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect In A Lonely Place(Dawson's Creek episode) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 2 § In A Lonely Place(Dawson's Creek episode) until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]