You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. To contest this block, please email me or place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your page, including an explanation why you feel you should be unblocked. This is a disruptive single-purpose account and likely sock/meat puppet. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1.could you please check my account? 2. Why you consider my one edit disruptive? I asked why a reliable source is not included in the article - you started arguing against me and the same time you blocked my account. 3.I read the links above I dont have any other accounts here - it seems that your block has to do with your point of view 4.Dont you think that in an article on homeopathy the homeopath's opinion should be included since it is appearing in a good source? Thanks--}}JeanandJane (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Based on your edit history, I don't see any reason for a block, especially considering the lack of any warnings here. Your edits were reasonable, and if you did anything unreasonable you should have been warned first, not bitten. This is certainly not the editing pattern of a disruptive single purpose account and there's no evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Request handled by: waggers (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited under any other account or IP? --Stephen 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JeanandJane. From your username, it looks as if you might be intending to share this account between more than one person. Please note that this is strictly prohibited (see WP:NOSHARE) - user accounts must only represent individuals. Please make sure this is the case. If you'd like to change your username, please see Wikipedia:Changing username for details of how to do it. If you have already shared the password to this account with someone else, please change your password immediately and keep the new one to yourself. You can change your password via the "my preferences" link at the very top of every page. Thanks, waggers (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks thanks for your advice and help.--JeanandJane (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Concepts in Clinical Pharmacokinetics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Concepts in Clinical Pharmacokinetics and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MuffledThud (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Homeopathy and related articles and other pseudoscience articles are subject to special measures. Please see the top of the homeopathy talk page for details. Verbal chat 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Joseph T. Dipiro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Verbal chat 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Verbal chat 13:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I removed the tag. Now please add the necessary information for a journal article: Impact factor if viable, indexes that cover it, how long its been published, who ll the editors in chief have been since the beginning,a nd anything else you have to show how important it is,. including especially 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases). I am not totally sure it will hold up as important, but get the information in. You might want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals for suggestions. I'd advise you to add this very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion.

As for Dipiro, find his 3 or 4 most cited papers and list them. Use scopus or web of science if possible, not google scholar. Put in proper references to his books, including publisher & year. Find published reviews of them & add them as references. He should be able to meet WP:PROF, but get the supporting information into the article.

In general, when you write a Wikipedia article, make sure the first version is already fairly well supported by evidence. See our guide to writing Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have a lot of experience and much time but I will do my best.--JeanandJane (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Joseph T. Dipiro, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.medscape.com/pages/public/bios/ed-pharmacists#DiPiro, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Joseph T. Dipiro and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Joseph T. Dipiro with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Joseph T. Dipiro.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:Joseph T. Dipiro saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Verbal chat 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This was brought up on the talk page by an IP editor. Verbal chat[reply]

A tag has been placed on The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pontillon est un journaliste et homme politique français, né le 4 décembre 1921 et décédé le 20 mars 1992

It might be helpful to create an article first as a subpage in your userspace and work on it there until you are ready to take it "live". For instance, User:JeanandJane/Lucinda L. Maine could be edited at your leisure, then you could click the move tab next to the history tab after you describe all the major points for the article and add sources. This helps the volunteers at New pages patrol since the first version in articlespace will have enough context to be readily distinguishable from the patently unencyclopedic content some people seem to feel the need to upload. Regards, - Eldereft (cont.) 08:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lucinda L. Maine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Verbal chat 06:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Harold C. Sox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Sox is the Editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine and member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.Sox was an associate editor of Scientific American Medicine, a consulting associate editor of The American Journal of Medicineand and a member of the editorial boards of three medical journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine.

Sox is the principal author of the well known textbook Medical Decision Making.

Sox has been member of different national committees that have influnced clinical, educational, and public policy in the USA : He served as a chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Institute of Medicine Committee to Study HIV Transmission Through Blood Products, and the Institute of Medicine Committee on Health Effects of Exposures in the Persian Gulf War. He was president of the American College of Physicians.

But you'll need to follow the instructions above and add a hangon tag if you want to save it until you can add citations in support of those statements. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} Could someone help the situation with User Verbal? This is really ridiculous.--JeanandJane (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What situation? I'll gladly help if you want to talk here or on my talk page. You might also like to try the fringe theories noticeboard, but make sure the request is neutrally worded and addresses edits not editors. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want help, I would suggest you listed what the problem was. — neuro^(talk) 10:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is much too deep for {{helpme}} responders. Consider taking it to the fringe theories noticeboard. — neuro^(talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Carl W. Gottschalk, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.lib.unc.edu/rbc/kidney/gottschalk.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected that page to Institute of Medicine. This encyclopedia certainly needs more articles (especially the well-sourced and thorough kind), but please check existing articles first to avoid duplication of effort. Regards, - Eldereft (cont.) 15:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that WikiPedia is international. Your article about National Board of Medical Examiners doesn't say what country it belongs to. Fiji? Lichtenstein? I don't know. (Well, I do, because I followed the link, and then the "contact us", but I shouldn't have had to!). PamD (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep writing sub-stubs about doctors. You don't explain what makes those doctors more or less notable than other doctors. Why are you doing this? Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should ask you why you keep tagging articles which are obviously notable like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_W._Gottschalk

The latest one is based on the Harvard archives and it is about a researher with awards and publications. Dont you think that the Harvard website is a reliable source ?--JeanandJane (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but I don't see what in that reliable source makes him more notable than any other doctor. Now that someone who wasn't you edited the first article, it's clear why he's notable. Perhaps you could spend more time on each article, describing what makes the doctor notable, rather than bounce from doctor to doctor to doctor. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, and the original source I provided immediately in every article, notability is established automatically.

Awards, prizes with their names, praise from reliable sources, chief editors in prestigious journals and more. Therefore adding the notability tag is kind of funny. Request for deletion based on this does not make sense. You could tag it for extention, more references etc...... --JeanandJane (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article National Board of Medical Examiners, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article does not claim or establish notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Verbal chat 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cliff Barger, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/03.21/PhysiologyProfe.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cliff Barger and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Cliff Barger with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cliff Barger.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:Cliff Barger saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

I usually name all papers by author and year, and sometimes also the books. For newspaper/magazine articles I use only the publication name and, if it can be confused with other articles in the same newspaper, sometimes also the year or the author.

So, for the cochrane review, I always refer to it as Vickers 2006, and I link to here because from there you can navigate to this page listing all the past versions of the paper, which will also include the future versions. They also update the current state of the papers, which is why the 2009 paper is (apparently temporaly) withdrawn from publication. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that MOS:UNLINKYEARS says "Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year"? Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repression eased, and the anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasized the need for solidly backed science. Isn't this one of the cases ? --JeanandJane (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something, why? Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can see the article is listed there, but that's circular, what makes 1844 significant to the publication of Vestiges? Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not always be a good idea to add links to an article. My own view is that links should be added only when they add something to the topic of the article: too many links are distracting and make finding useful links harder. Please see WP:OVERLINKING and WP:UNLINKDATES. For example, in National Board of Medical Examiners, this edit linked "1915" in "The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), founded in 1915...", and linked "World War II" in "The board rose in prominence in the years after World War II". On the principle that readers will not find anything useful with respect to the NBME in those links, I have removed them (and several others in other articles). Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this[1] again. See WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my mistake. I didn't realize you were only moving sections around. When you do things like that it would be really helpful to make a note in the edit summary to avoid confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#homeopathy. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Enric I asked Vassyana's advice about the tag and she said did not state whether or not I found the tag useful or appropriate.I gave my opinion about disputes over tagging. Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, as you yourself note JeanandJane has not been given the requisite warning which even gives AE jurisdiction. —Whig (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it to him on the Oscillio page. I'll check, but why would it require an admin to make you aware? Odd. Verbal chat 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd or not, the decision requires that, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." —Whig (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have participated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent events at the homeopathy page, it's probably worth making sure that you are formally aware of the discretionary sanctions in place on homeopathy-related topics on Wikipedia. Because of prior abuses and poor behavior surrounding the topic, the Arbitration Committee has stipulated that any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The full text of the sanction can be found here.

This is not to imply that I, or anyone else, is currently considered sanctions against you. It's a general request to review the discretionary sanctions and make an extra effort to ensure that your behavior complies with Wikipedia's behavioral and content guidelines. That sort of effort is essential on a topic as prone to controversy as homeopathy on Wikipedia. Please let me know of any questions or concerns, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 06:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Homeopathy. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JeanandJane! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Harold C. Sox - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (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) 14:00, 24 November 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold C. Sox is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold C. Sox 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]