I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  BD2412 T 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you intend to write articles on all the other schools? I'd considered making this template myself and decided not to because so many are still just redlinks. I'm not sure it's a good idea to have the template until at least half the schools have meaningful articles. I'm not going to nominate it for TfD or anything, I'm just curious. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

(Your reply pasted for continuity)

I don't have plans to create any of the other pages, but from my experience, they're much more likely to be written if a redlink is created. You could take all the redlinks out the template if you want, leaving the nonexistant articles as text, but I think this will serve better to get new articles faster. Note that I also created the main Governor's Schools (Virginia) article. Jkatzen 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I did indeed notice it had been written...I've wished there was one for a while but don't have the knowledge to write it. Kudos! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Shenandoah Valley GS

I'd left the DATE NEEDED, etc in there hoping that User:Schadenfreude328 would see it and put the info in - he was editing right before me (edit conflicted at one point) and it appears that he's from the school, so I was hoping he'd see the table and have the information at hand. You're right to remove it in the long term, of course. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. Jim Apple 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. He/she hadn't been warned yet, so I gave him/her a warning, but I'll block him/her if he/she/it keeps on spamming. Should this come up again, you'll probably want to try WP:AIV, the vandalism noticeboard. Good job reporting, and happy edits! Deltabeignet 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. — Cryptic (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help. The pronounciation controversy is second only to the talk over tolls!! Vaoverland 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Please discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if you feel that I have been unfair in my deletions. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I've opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2 (and asked Jimbo, Angela, and Anthere to comment there). Note that the RfC is only about his speedy deletions, not his editorial judgement (which I think is generally good). Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for my knee-jerk reaction - what do you think about how it is now? -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Has it caused any head scratching outside roadgeek circles? Have there been any plans to make it an Interstate? From what I can tell, it was never supposed to be one. -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC) 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Jkatzen, you mentioned in your detailed copyright information that it is only for use on a single article. On any other article it is simply copyright infringement. You did not use any tag to explain your copyright information, so it was untagged. I have tried to tag it according to information provided. If you think, it is tagged incorrectly, then please tag it suitably but don't leave as untagged image. Thank you, Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 08:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The reason I made these changes because the policy states that the names of companies' articles shouldnt include the part of the name which indicates the legal basis on which the company is formed. So the article about Westinghouse Electric Company LLC should be at Westinghouse Electric Company. The issue becomes more complex when this would result in two articles having the same name, the prefered solution is to disambiguate with a term in brackets after the name, as had been used with the two WEC firms. However, as they are legally formed as Corporations then that term shouldnt be included, which is why I removed it from the 1886 firm's article.

We've been working from a particular list, so I hadnt seen WEC 1998, but I would propose it was moved to Westinghouse Electric (1998). I hope this fleshes out the issues a bit more, although I must admit to being no expert whatsover in the workings of Westinghouse, I hope that we can come to some sensible application in this case. Thanks. Ian3055 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll list it all on Requested Moves. Ian3055 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi - I have taggged this image as having no source because Image:Atlantic station.jpg has no source. Unfortunately if the source of the original image isn't found, your modification will also have to be deleted. - SCEhard T 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

He has been asked but has not responded yet. Oddly, he actually removed the GFDL license shortly after adding it. You might want to put Image:Atlantic station.jpg on your watchlist - if he puts up the proper source, feel free to remove my 'no source' notice from your modified copy. Thanks! - SCEhard T 05:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Jsmorse47 ( talk · contribs) made a comment about you on my talk page. I'm tempted to write it off as retaliation for your opposition to Mr. Morse's link on Talk:Logo, but I thought I should give you a chance to respond if you choose. Wmahan . 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You'll probably pick this up but Vendormate, not done properly anyway and sneaky suspicion of puppets about it, regards -- Nigel ^{( Talk)} 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I voted to delete that article (although that's not my point here). I do believe that the company doesn't meet WP:CORP and since your user page, I now realize, identifies you as the co-founder there's a bit of a vanity/spam/conflict of interest issue. But I wanted to also say that I very much disapprove of the motivations of the nominator. Closercate1 ( talk · contribs) seems to be a single purpose account who I suspect seeks revenge for your vote on the Logo talk page. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up about him. Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with everything Pascal says above. As much as I don't like to admit it, Cochese8 ( talk · contribs) and Jsmorse47 ( talk · contribs) might have a point that I'm being inconsistent if I didn't vote to delete. Wmahan . 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do not use rollback when not reverting vandalism. You should always make an effort to discuss the issue with the "other side", either on its talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you. -- NE2 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I made it a redirect to Viacom because, AfD or no, the article is unreferenced, poorly written, and of a subject overy limited interest. I've reverted it to the version before my last edit, though, so that perhaps someone can clean it up. — tregoweth ( talk) 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I changed GAMES to Games per the Wikipedia style manual:

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
  • avoid: REALTOR®
  • instead, use: Realtor

As "Games" is just a word, and not an abbreviation, acronym, etc., there isn't any reason to spell it in all caps, other than Games wanting it to stand out. :) (Also, I'm a reader of the magazine, so I have nothing against it.) ‣ tregoweth ( talk) 14:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You edited an external link in logo design article that is www.logoblog.org. Can you tell me what spamy thing did you find on this page. Its just a logo design resource portal.Aly pirani 05:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want it to stay up, then you should verify it; otherwise, wiki policies states to remove these kinds of information that are without direct sources. You didn't even mark it "citation needed" even though it needs citations. 162.84.159.253

Within minutes of my adding Alexandria as a placename in Fairfax Co., you'd deleted it. My reasoning is that if people call a place by that name, that is a place, regardless of which government authorities recognize it. Alexandria, Fairfax Co. is south of Alexandria and north of Mount Vernon. Yes, the Post Office regards it as a distinct place. Why are you so aggrsssive about deleting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeamays ( talk • contribs)

So why do you keep removing valid news articles in relation to a companies wiki page? Since when does getting sued by the federal government not newsworthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgurlygirl ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC). reply

cbscorporation is a subsidiary of National Amusements, Inc. [1]-- Micheal21 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

um...ouch! No, just following orders from User:JzG and User:A Man In Black. Citing WP:NOT#DIR, they are claiming that newscast schedules are no longer allowed by Wikipedia rules. I will be perfectly honest with you, I disagree with this and tried to fight it, but with no help, I was ridiculed and threatened. So, I did their dirty work for them.

This is not of my doing, I fought to keep them, no one would help, two admins' said they had to go, they went. My apologizes if this has messed up some of your work. If so, I will work with you to get that work back, within WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Look, I know it is notable (it is part of the article structure on WP:TVS), but no one wants to fight this change. No one, not even WP:TVS members. Even though my objections and a proposal for a slight rule change, it did no good.

I am sorry, but according to those two admin and WP:NOT#DIR, they have to go. It sucks, because in 99% of cases, they are notable and they are covered by WP:TVS, but when you are ridiculed and threatened by two admin, it is better just to throw in the towel and delete them.

If you can write them into paragraph and not a schedule, then they would be OK. Otherwise, they will probably get deleted again and I don't want to you get in trouble from one of those two admin. But, if you can work it into an article, then it will be OK. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 05:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, relax. I live in Virginia (near Winchester) and I keep a close eye on the Virginia TV and Radio stations, so I know a little about them.

But, this has nothing to do with my ego nor am I "making knee-jerk changes on a lot of pages based on a disagreement" I had "with a few editors". I did submit a proposal, which was instantly laughed at, I was ridiculed and then threatened by two different admin. So, my deletions, were not a "rampage" as you put it. It is deleting pages that two admins threatened and ridiculed over, cited WP:NOT#DIR and ultimately, I did their dirty work.

I asked others for their opinions, only to have my messages reverted as harrassment. So, I can't talk to people and see what they think, if admins go around and revert me. What I said was not harrassment, it was a standard cut/paste message (got lazy, didn't want to type the same thing over), asking for opinions on the situation (which I got none). I can't talk to people, if I am not allowed, and people won't talk back.

I would ask that you look at my work on the Winchester, VA radio pages, Kingwood, WV radio pages, and others before passing judgement on me. I don't have an ego, I do try to make changes, and I am actually a pretty nice guy, just don't like being threatened and ridiculed.

I did what was demanded and I apologize if that messed up some work that you or others did. I again, let you know that I am against this, but when it is demanded, it is better to just delete than fight. This is not of my doing...and I am not a "Spurned Editor on a Rampage". Again, my apologizes... NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 05:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Okie Dokie...I have tried to be nice, but I can see all you want is an agruement. It was nice talking to you. Have a Good Weekend. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have, again, reverted these as WP:TVS has not ruled one way nor the other on this. The post pretty much just died out. I am going with WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 05:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I see that you're a student at or alum of Georgia Tech! I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Georgia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Georgia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You're wanton destruction and reverts are not helpful. See talk page. Epson291 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply

If by "You're" you mean "Your" and by "wanton" you mean "gratuitous" and by your patronizing tone you intended something more constructive, I still disagree. I think, at any given point, the article should at least read like a final piece, even if some elements aren't cemented. And with random question marks interrupting the flow, I think it's hard to read. I'd hardly consider my edits "destruction" any more than any changes made by any other editor who takes an interest in the style and legibility of an article. I'm willing to discuss the merits of using question-mark blanks with you, but I don't think the harsh tone you've been taking with me since my first edit of your work is helpful. Jkatzen 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instruction at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia to email that you do hold the copyright of the image and you do license it. Even if you do hold the copyright of the image and you do license it, you do have to specify which license. Otherwise, I have to tag it fair use for now. Your cooperation is appreciated, or I have to get another admin to step in. Thank you.-- Jusjih 01:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing the disambiguation link on the page. The article was one of my first contributions to wikipedia and I was not quite sure on how to add a disambig link. -- DreamsAreMadeOf 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Viacom logo 2006.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Another editor has added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Movin' On Up, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Here it is, Hukkepakk ( talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

And the next! Hukkepakk ( talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The official name is "Sully Historic Site". The NHRP entry refers to it by the name that you object to. Locals refer to it as "Sully Plantation", but that's unofficial, lacks a reliable source. Tedickey ( talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ecoleetage ( talk) 12:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Sunnyd-transbottle.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

could you start a discussion next time you want to revert my article moves.

The Toyota Supra is by far the most famous use of the word, and the most likely to be searched for. There is a disambiguation link at the top of the article.

There is no reason to change it again. thanks Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I fully support your last edit to Neutral grain spirit, scaling down the picture of the bottle. We haven't agreed on other parts of the article, so I just wanted to point out this concurrence. MagnesianPhoenix ( talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair criticism. I've done the following:

• I found a free online copy of the entire Houston Chronicle story and replaced the non-free cite in the article with a free version.

• As I said before, the two sources do not address the question of whether "anchor baby" legislation would survive judicial review, so I stand by my earlier claim that these sources do not belong where they were. I (re)created a new paragraph introducing the issue and moved the sources there — something I believe needed to be done in order to justify keeping these two sources in the article at all.

• I've left the contentious "anchor baby" language alone for now. I acknowledge that I misread the extent to which the RfC had gone and whether we were ready to try this sort of rewrite along the lines of one of the suggestions made.

Richwales ( talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh your sad troubled life. Ryanwestman ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Danger ( talk) 08:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Danger. Good name. There was a lot of talk re: this image both in an RFD and a "Possibly Unfree Files" discussion. Regardless of whether a "(c)" appears or not, a federal agency has no ability to copyright. Nonetheless, agencies have a habit of attempting it anyway (notice such marks on IRS' site). Even if it isn't free, it's generally considered fair use to have an image that's the subject of critical commentary to accompanying text describing such. Check the RFD/PUF discussions for more on this. There really wasn't any consensus re: whether this image is or isn't free (partly because courts are somewhat split on it, though less of late), and there's been zero discussion (at least as of a month or two ago) as to whether it's fair use or not. You've been the first to suggest it's not, given the commentary in the article. Jkatzen ( talk) 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Dream out loud ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Queenbeesz.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The rationale says "Book cover of Queen Bees and Wannabes, intended to illustrate an article directly about the work." What else is necessary for fair use? That it's a book cover used on an article whose subject is the book is pretty typical fair use on Wikipedia. I've removed the tag so it's not quickly deleted while this is sorted out. Jkatzen ( talk) 14:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Queenbeesz.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Dude, did you not see my prior comment above? What more do you want? Rather than just repeat yourself, why not address my comment? Jkatzen ( talk) 14:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RAG gridsmall ver3.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:RAG gridsmall ver3.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:34, 12 August 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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jkatzen. 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

Hello, Jkatzen. 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

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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islands (restaurant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawaiian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of film broadcasting rights in the United States 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/List of film broadcasting rights in the United States 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.

Trivialist ( talk) 22:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply