Jump to content

User talk:TonyW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Tony, welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. For ideas of what to put on your user page, see Wikipedia:User page.

If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela. 14:07, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Category tags

[edit]

When adding a category, make sure you add a tag so that it sorts alphabetically correctly.

For the article John Doe,

[[Category:XYZ]]
gets sorted under "J"

[[Category:XYZ|Doe, John]]
gets sorted under "D"

Curps 04:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I went over the list of your recent category additions, and I think they're all alphabetically sorted now (at least the astronomers and physicists).

One other thing, if the name has accented letters, then the sorting tag added to the Category should usually omit those accents, because in English an accented letter sorts the same as an unaccented letter.

Curps 04:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the mathematicians need to be in surname order too. That's how real-life lists of names are ordered. It's a lot of work.

There's no way to simply automate it either. You can have a Chinese name like "Zhang Yuzhe" (file under Z), a Spanish name like "Josep Comas Sola" (file under C), names like "Galileo Galilei" and "Tycho Brahe" which are traditionally abbreviated to "Galileo" and "Tycho" (and sort accordingly), and so on. So each name has to be on a case-by-case basis.

Curps 05:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stowe re-entered onto June 14

[edit]

I just reentered the Harriet Beecher Stowe entry onto the June 14 article. I don't know why I got rid of it in the first place. JB82 00:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category alterations

[edit]

What's the rationale behind piping the category links for cryptography articles? — Matt 15:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Sorry if I sounded terse, I'm having trouble with intermittent connectivity at the moment, so I have to be brief. I was a bit confused as to changes like [[Category:Cryptography|Torus]] for Torus based cryptography surely that's not necessary (unless I missed sometimg), and causes out-of-sequence listings for, e.g., Type 2 product. Similarly, XTEA is piped as [[Category:Cryptography|X]] .. surely that causes it to be incorrectly sorted? — Matt 15:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, note that if you don't specify a sort tag, it defaults to the page name; I'll try and fix some of your changes. — Matt 16:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Note that (e.g.) [[Category:Crypto|XTEA]] sorts identically to [[Category:Crypto]], so adding the full page name isn't needed. — Matt 16:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing all those "C" articles! — Matt 17:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi again! Just one thing; Category:Cryptographers is a subcategory of Category:Cryptography, so you only need the "Cryptographers" one. — Matt 20:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to have you helping out! You might want to have a glance at the "Subcategories" section in Category:Cryptography; some are more specific than the general "cryptography" topic. The "rule" is (I think) to place the article in the most specific subcategory you can find. — Matt 20:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's right. If an article will fit in "Crypto attacks", then it should only list that as the category, and not "Crypto" as well. — Matt 20:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think so; if I remember correctly, many of the other block ciphers are. — Matt 20:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in categorising the cryptography articles! Much appreciated. — Matt 11:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VfD nominations

[edit]

Good afternoon. On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michelle Bass, you suggested that we should maintain the same standards and nominate all the unnotable participants from Big Brother (USA TV series). I think that's a great idea. If you nominate them, you will have my support. Biographies of living people are a troublesome area for our encyclopedia. They are very difficult to maintain in a way that stays NPOV, unambiguous and verifiable. I would much rather see minor celebrities mentioned as an aside in a main article. The endless breakouts just seem to have too much potential for abuse. Thanks for your thoughts. Rossami 16:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would rather much make a compromise. In the IRC chat we were discussing making either a page dedicated to the contestants of the show, or just splitting up the pages into seasons, not unlike what is being done to The Amazing Race. One thing I did wish, however, was to be consulted before the mass listing. It's just common courtesy, I think. Mike H 01:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Look at the format of The Amazing Race. That is what I'm considering. If there are Big Brother 3 (USA) kind of articles, then there will be no need for separate articles on people themselves. The stories of the people can be told in one place as well as what happened in the house, as with separate articles, one has to isolate information dealing with one character and shelve everything else. Mike H 01:29, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. If individual series run articles are given to each season of a show, contestant articles would be obsolete. This could have been cleared up much more easily had you talked to me about it first, you know. Mike H 01:43, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I see who nominated these kinds of articles first, and it wasn't you. Okay. My bad. Mike H 05:35, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

WikiMagic

[edit]

I found you on the Wikipedian by field of interest listing.
I'd like to invite you to participate in my project WikiMagic. The Magic Collaboration of the Week has just been set up and I could use some help from people who aren't just interested in exposure. Do you happen to know any specifics on copyright law when magic effects are concerned? Hope to hear from you soon. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:17, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic for adminship

[edit]

I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:38, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Breakup of date pages

[edit]

I don't know that this is the way "we're" going, but here are my thoughts on the matter: 1. Many of the date pages were getting unwieldy and hard to edit and access. 2. This is bound to get worse with time as more entries are made. 3. The year pages are easy to break up into months. 4. The day pages are harder to deal with, but I have been breaking them up as follows: earliest century-1899, 1900-1999, 2000-2099. This at least gives a little bit of a break, although eventually we will probably have to break them into smaller pieces, especially 1900-1999 births. 5. I have been making these changes as I touched each page, but I have no official status. I'm not an admin or anything, but I have been doing quite a bit of work on this. If there is a good reason, I could be convinced that this is not the best way to go. But I hope these changes won't be reversed without some discussion. Let me know what you think. Ksnow 21:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Thanks for you response. Then I'll continue with what I've been doing until someone has a better idea. Ksnow 19:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Article Licensing

[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 15:31, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


Dates

[edit]

My understanding is that it is Wikipedia policy for all dates to be linked. Also, I know I for one find it more aesthetically pleasing when reading pages with lots and lots of dates in lists. Kind regards, jguk 16:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, though there is a tradition on anniversary pages of not linking the year if it's the same year as the previous event/birth/death. I do think this should be changed however, and seeing as I haven't found the style documented anywhere I think it needn't be discussed and fixing it can be done whenever one happens to run into such a page. --fvw* 14:13, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Spam

[edit]

I've no idea why that URL is being blocked and it doesn't seem to be in the spam filter. I've left a message about it at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Angela. 00:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre

[edit]

Hi! This is a note to let you know that I have just established WikiProject Theatre. Please come and join us in building up Wiipedia’s articles relating to theatre! Ganymead 18:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lots of edits, not an admin

[edit]

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

BB

[edit]

Why shouldn't the link to Derek Laud go direct to his article? If people want to find out about Derek, Derek Laud would be more useful. --Celestianpower talk 21:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I see you're point. I just thought that it means more clicks for the user but it isn't all that important really. --Celestianpower talk 07:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Banks

[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the disambiguation on the link on my personal page. I have now corrrected it. Mikeroberts 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

[edit]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BarnStar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Keep up the good work !! Mr.whiskers (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BB9uk

[edit]

sorry to annoy you but im new to wikipedia and i see you edit bb, tonight at 12 midnight house pics will be made available on the channel 4 website, i was just wondering if you could edit this into the article when it happens, if not it's cool.Coollooc (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Coollooc[reply]

WikiProject Software

[edit]
WikiProject Software Hello TonyW. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==.

Thanks,
Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (TalkContributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

date autoformatting change

[edit]

Spice girls: I note that you reinstated the autoformatting for the opening dates. Please note that this is now deprecated. See MOSNUM. Thanks. Tony (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my women wrong

[edit]

Of course it was Britney; sorry to mislead. Please ping me again if you have any further queries on the issue. Tony (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Date audit"

[edit]

You're unlinking the dates, which is fine - but you also change the date format from mdy to dmy, and I don't see how's that warranted by WP:DATE - in fact, my understanding is that MOS specifically warns against this. GregorB (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... My understanding (again: WP:DATE is in turmoil right now so don't take my word for it) of the "right" algorithm for unlinking the dates is: 1) if the article has strong ties to the US, change the format to mdy, 2) if it's the UK (or any number of English-speaking countries that use the dmy format), change it to dmy, 3) if it's unclear or it is international in nature, leave it as it is. Frankly, I don't care that much one way or the other, but judging from the recent WP:DATE discussion, many people do... GregorB (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I agree with you that articles on Windows are international in nature rather than tied to the US - it's just the matter of what is to be done with these "international" articles, and this was a major point of contention in recent MOS discussions. AFAIK, there is still no consensus on this issue, so my understanding is that the 2005 ArbCom ruling ("don't change date formats unless there is a good reason for doing so, such as national ties") is still in effect. GregorB (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that because Microsoft is a US based (and founded) company, articles about their products should use the MDY format.-- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that they were already in the MD,Y format before TonyW started messing with them so the ArbCom ruling should protect the MD,Y format for these articles. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Births, Living people

[edit]

Hey TonyW, I'm just curious about why you removed Category:1990 births and Category:Living people in this edit and at a couple others. My impression was that Living people was included for BLP reasons. But I wanted to ask you, rather than just undoing, to see if there's something special in these cases. Thanks, —Politizer talk/contribs 14:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, you are totally right! Sorry about that! I must have been doing too many things at once. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking dates is not an excuse for format changes

[edit]

Delinking dates is not an excuse for format changes. Please stop using that a guise to change formats, as you did here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene is right: the original choice should have been retained (US style), since there's no strong connection with an anglophone country that uses international format (e.g., the UK, NZ, Ireland, Sth Afr, Australia). Please be aware of MOSNUM's rules concerning the date-formatting of an article. Tony (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response from my talk page: Well, not under current rules, although there has been an RfC to this effect—still in progress, so why not have your say? Gene is in the right, although his tone could do with softening, couldn't it.

It's great that you're operating the script. Here's the quick-sure method I use to check which format (dmy or mdy) is should click on:
  1. Is it a US-related article? Is so, must be mdy, except that some US military articles want international (check the existing format).
  2. Is it Canada-related? 98% US format already (so why the big fuss about how they use either?)—retain current or majority formatting.
  3. Other anglophone countries: must be international.
  4. Articles not related to an anglophone country: Keep existing format; if inconsistent, go with the majority.

It's best to hit the mdy for the last category (and Canada). Then the raw formats that have been altered by your action are highlighted in red in the diff. If you then need to reverse your decision, simply hit "All dates to dmy" (or "mdy") above in the list. Save.

The aims are to (1) adhere to the rules, (2) not upset editors, and (3) make each article consistent in the main text.

Tony (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 has hit on most of the highlights. I'd also brought this up on WP:MOSNUM#Delinking dates is being used as an excuse for improper format changes, you might want to follow the discussion there.
The main point I'd make is that a change from a reasonably consistent format should never be made as a part of an edit implying that this is something required by an MoS policy against linking dates.
And despite what MOSNUM says, there are few Canadian articles where month DD, YYYY is not the most appropriate format, and a great many U.S.-related articles now using DD month YYYY which should not be changed without discussion. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gene, but are you suggesting Canadian articles should lean towards mdy? --Ckatzchatspy 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello TonyW! 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. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Barry Jones (magician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countenance divine

[edit]

I have opened an AfD for Countenance divine at WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine if you are interested. Tb (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

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. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

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) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Linda Lusardi for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linda Lusardi 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/Linda Lusardi 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. WuhWuzDat 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!

[edit]

Hello TonyW!

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

[edit]

Hi TonyW! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:12, 18 January 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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, TonyW. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, TonyW. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, TonyW. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, TonyW. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Tribe (2008 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Tribe (2008 film). Since you had some involvement with the The Tribe (2008 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Treasure Island (1999 film) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Treasure Island (1999 film) 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/Treasure Island (1999 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

The Film Creator (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]