|Welcome to my talk page
- I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain about a tag or a warning, please assume good faith.
- If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere.
- I will not tolerate any profanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.
Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.
Removing duplicate arguments
could you restrict this change to args that do not end in numbers? this is the restriction that was placed on SporkBot. it's easier to clean up if all the first/last pairs are still there. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Frietjes, I'm confused. Could you point out the exact ones you are talking about? Bgwhite (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- for example, you removed "first6=R." from more than one citation. Frietjes (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Frietjes. This would be an AWB issue... Oh Magioladitis. Also, I'm not entirely sure why removing duplicate args is a problem. Could you elaborate so I can understand. As you are more knowledgeable than me on this, I'll defer to your judgement. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I think AWB only renames some parameters. I do not recall AWB removing duplicated parameters. GoingBatty knows better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis: Yes, AWB's general fixes to Fix Citation Templates states that it "removes duplicated fields". I copied the citation template in question to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Sandbox and confirmed that AWB's general fixes makes that change. I think that Frietjes is stating that it's easier to fix the problem with the authors if AWB doesn't remove part of the incorrect information. For example, maybe the proper manual fix would be to change
|last6=Svitak |first6=R. |last6=Pradl |first6=R. |last7=Stepan |first7=M.
|last6=Svitak |first6=R. |last7=Pradl |first7=R. |last8=Stepan |first8=M.
Removing a duplicate
|title= field is helpful, but when AWB removes the second
|first6= parameter, the citation still has something that has to be manually fixed. Frietjes' suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Rjwilmsi might find this discussion interesting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty can you please fill out a report for this at WP:AWB/B. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis and GoingBatty: the assessment of the problem is correct. the best solution would be to check if these appear as pairs, then only remove duplicates if they are duplicate pairs. however, this may be more difficult than simply avoiding args that end in numbers. note that the first/last and editor-first/editor-last pairs are the only the only problematic ones in citation templates. in templates in general, you have to watch out for score1/score2, lat/long, subdivision_name1/subdivision_type1, ... see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SporkBot 5 for related discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis and Frietjes: See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Removing duplicate arguments not appropriate for numbered parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Change restricted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm just wondering why my edits to the climate portion of the article keep getting reverted. I updated the stats from the Environment Canada page so that it would reflect their most recent data and not the significantly outdated data from the older version of the article. I get that I'm not a registered user, so it might look fishy, but is there anything else I may have done wrong to cause my edits to continually be reverted? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- 188.8.131.52 Yea, it certainly needed to be update. Revert my edit and...
- Fix the ref you gave. It's giving off an error and not being displayed.
- No need to add the chill and humidex charts. Hardly anyone understands humidex and low wind chill is sort of a fake number.
- Well, atleast I'll never visit Montreal in November or December. Max wind chill happens everyday where I live, because my wife yells at me everyday :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and for the help! I've made the changes as you've suggested and fixed the ref. Also, hah! January and February are far worse though, not matter how much your wife is yelling. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Per this move log, you moved this page to the 'correct' Gosince attack spelling, but someone has apparently copy/pasted it back to Gošince attack. See here. The editor had already been advised of this by another editor, here and I have added my agreement to their comment. To complicate things however, the talkpage is still at Talk:Gosince attack.
Only contacting you since you are involved. Sorry if I'm short circuiting normal procedures!
N.b. Editor seems to be making a fair number of page moves lately! Move log - 220 of Borg 04:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- 220 of Borg No problem in contacting me here. The moving was worse as it involves two people and copy/pasting. I left a message on Zoupan's talk page for all three of you.
- You didn't answer my question from the other day... What is your full designation? Bgwhite (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Bgwhite, I am not sure if you work on maps but still taking a chance. I placed a request here for creating a map of Varanasi district. One user was kind enough to spare the time and make it. What I am trying to achieve is a pushpin functionality as the map has been used in this page where we provide the name of the file / map and supply the coordinates; subsequently the location is tagged on the map. Desired map has been uploaded here but when I tried to use it, I get and error, which when followed takes me here and other similar pages. Can you please give this map and look and help us out? Many thanks in advance. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Bgwhite, NNW resolved this and closed the pending issue. Please ignore the request. Thanks for offering to help. Regards, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Arun Kumar SINGH It's really wonderfully to see things like this... corporation at its best. Thank you NNW for helping out. Bgwhite (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I spent a good ten minutes trying to spot the unclosed ref. Thanks for fixing. --NeilN talk to me 07:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN AWB does come in handy. Thanks goes to the developers. Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Arun Kumar SINGH I don't think they fail GNG or they are Spam. However, I do think Jeffro77 has a point. The information can be presented better in the Central Council of Homoeopathy article. I'm not a fan of a topic having several small articles when one article would better serve the reader.... they can get the all the info in one spot. As it stands now, I'd combine all three articles into one.
- I think they could be stand-alone articles if more info is added. Is this degree available at multiple Universities? What courses are needed for the degree? Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles for examples.
- Jeffro77, I understand why you did the redirect and would agree with you. However, after the 2nd round of reverts it became an edit war. At the point you should have taken the articles to AfD and let others not involved decide. Bgwhite (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Prior to your confirmation that the articles are unnecessary, three editors other than myself—User:Erpert (the third opinion respondent), User:JamesBWatson (administrator), and User:The king of the sun (the editor who had also previously restored the redirects)—had also told AKS.9955 that the articles are not suitable. No editors have supported AKS.9955's position. It therefore seemed uncontroversial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Jeffro77, I looked at the history of the two pages above, only you and The king of the sun did a revert. King of the sun has 133 edits. I looked at the article's talk pages, while I didn't read it all, only you and Singh were discussing. I don't know where or what was said elsewhere. My advice still stands from what info I know, after a 2nd round of reverting you should have taken it to AfD. If you took it elsewhere after the 2nd round, depending on where it was, that was also a good thing. From what you've told me on JamesBWatson and Erpert agreeing, sounds like the third revert you did was valid.
- I should note that I've had past experience with AKS.9955 in which they have asked me questions and help... including a talk message just above this one. I don't think he did any adminshopping and just asked me because he trusts my opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion continued at User_talk:JamesBWatson#User:AKS.9955 as a result of a false report AKS.9955 made about me about vandalism (which JamesBWatson immediately dismissed as false). The article Talk page also links back to the prior discussion in February which includes discussion by the third opinion respondent.
- AKS.9955 latest action of restoring the article and then going to AfD seems to be a largely redundant attempt to make a point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bgwhite, I just went by the guidelines and despite reading all of them, I could not find any reason that go against the pages. I however, have also mentioned several times that should the pages not be in line then appropriate action as per defined guidelines should be taken; either mark the pages for AfD if it fails WP:GNGor if the pages are promotional (or WP:SPAM which is the same thing) in nature then again either AfD or tag it "Advert". If I am insisting for an action as per defined guidelines and rules from a non-admin, then am I wrong in it? As far as an admin is concerned, I am fine with any action taken. In this case, only non-admins have been redirecting the articles; latest being non registered user User:The king of the sun who comes out mysteriously sometimes and in this case came out after 4 days, did some random edits and ended day with these two pages precisely with complete knowledge of the subject (strange).
- Just to impress upon the point of having separate articles, Central Council of Homoeopathy is lesser known than the two degrees mentioned. Also, my issue with Jeffro has been that he is not sure of what the real issue has been. He has used reasons such as 1) fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 2) They are not broadly recognised certifications 3) and the information that was in the articles was merely administrative in nature 4) could very likely be viewed as inappropriate promotion and 5) I have WP:COI. All I am keen in knowing is what is his real reason and based on what rules.
- To end the discussion, I am restoring the reverts by Jeffro77 and then marking both for AfD. Hopefully that would sort the matters out by independent editor's votes. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- AKS.9955 I was going to yell at your for restoring them, but I see you added an AfD tag on them. I think this is good in the long run... It will settle the matter.
- "Although I am neutral and also... " I think you meant "Although I am not neutral and also... " Please add the not. Bgwhite (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Bgwhite: Something in your message above caught my attention and I wish to answer the questions raised by you there. You said, quote "I think they could be stand-alone articles if more info is added. Is this degree available at multiple Universities? What courses are needed for the degree? Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles for examples". Unquote. Following;
- I think they could be stand-alone articles if more info is added: Agreed and I am sure I will have your understanding that articles evolve over a period of time with multiple editor's help. Out of all the articles I have written, I still have 40+ articles for further expansion (although they qualify WP:GNG, I feel it needs more details).
- Is this degree available at multiple Universities: Yes more than 100 universities and colleges and several hundred thousand students have obtained these degrees till date.
- What courses are needed for the degree:, Well this is the sore point actually. I had that information (section) in the article (admission criteria, just like in MBA) and was ,told that this is promotional, hence I deleted it.
- Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles for examples": I did that and have quoted several examples and was told "WP:OSE".
- As I mentioned above, I have nominated both pages for WP:AfD, something with Jeffro77 has been unable to do, despite me saying so and now you too. Lastly, (and I am not talking about an admin redirecting a page), I am of the opinion that a non-admin must not redirect such pages on his own simply because it does not fall under WP:POFRED. There is a reason why we have admins and then we have other users; let an admin decide if the page needs to be redirected. Personally I will just stick to the guidelines and not use my judgment until I am qualified enough to do so. Trust this explains. Cheers,
p.s. Sorry for the typo of not. Will correct it. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- AKS.9955 Start writing in information to the articles. It will help in your case. If the articles are deleted, you can transfer the material into the main article. Especially mention that the degree is available in over 100 universities.
- Coursed needed for the degree: You mentioned what is needed before you get in. How about give a sampling of courses that are required to obtain the degree. For example Bachelor of Education says "A typical BEd program may include coursework in pedagogy, educational psychology, educational policy and leadership, assessment, curriculum development and lesson planning, social justice, special education, and instructional technology.".
- Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying look at the articles... See what they have in them and do the same for yours. The Bachelor of Education from above is an example of one.
- Any person can make a page to a redirect. Jeffro77 was within their rights to do so. I applaud Jeffro77 in starting a discussion on the talk page as most editors would not. Things broke down on the talk page and it also turned into an edit war. There is blame and praise to be had on both sides. It should have been taken to AfD alot sooner.
- Admins are just like any other editor, but with special abilities. No admin can simply do redirects and make it so. Admins also have to take articles to AfD to have a redirect stick. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Copied Bgwhite, I will wait for the outcome of the AfD and take further action. Just a small mention, it was me who insisted for a discussion on the Talkpage before taking further action. Your comment on "admin and non-admin use" noted and understood. Much thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Borg designation of species Wikipedia admin
Both 220 of Borg and Jeffro77 have edits on my talk page. From Jeffro77's user page, they say they are species 5618. How cool is to have species 5618 and their enemies, the Borg on my talk page. Geekgasm alert. The Borg has designated my species, Wikipedia admin, as 666. The Borg will not assimilate us as it will not help in their goal of obtaining perfection. Instead, if we are assimilated, we will lead the Borg into chaos. Bgwhite (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The assignment of 666 as the Borg designation of Wikipedia admins implies not only that Wikipedia admins are not human, but also that they were encountered by the Borg long before the Borg encountered humans.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Jeffro77 You are correct about us being non-human. The WP:RFA is a sham. We only "nominate" and "pass" those of our species. Sorry, but you will never be an admin. We our an old and ancient species that move around the stars. Other species have Wikipedia admins parasites, bloodsuckers, devils and Republicans on their worlds. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Republicans?! Egads!--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Climate change sanctions alert
||This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
That article falls under these sanctions. Where you've been edit warring and making edits by using unreliable sources without consensus. Kindly refrain from doing that and asking same questions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- OccultZone You have alot of nerve. You are never to place anything on my talk page again. You are forbidden here. Just like you are at countless other people's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also noticed of the the 3 people who are against you on this discussion, you only placed this on my page. Egads. Bgwhite (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bgwhite, better than the alert he posted in my talk page which I did not even know what he exactly wanted from me :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate all of you fixes on SPURS National Honor Society, but why the change for the date for Nevada Reno from 1962 to 1964?Naraht (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Naraht That would be a mistake on my part. I haven't a clue why I did that. Bgwhite (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I was hoping you actually had a source with a year on it which might be better than the 1968 Bairds (which doesn't have anything on the page actually about SPURS, but rather on the entries for the individual schools. Quite annoying...Naraht (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding personal attacks on 'Edit Summary' - Baidya
Dear Bgwhite, I would like to request you to review the personal attacks (on Edit Summary) against me as an admin and take any action that seems appropriate to you. The personal attacks are part of the 'Edit Summary' of the article on Baidya by an anon using the IP 117.194.* and are available in the Revision history dated 29th April 2015 & 17th May 2015. I have replied on the talk page on both the occasions. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Problem with BG19bot - edit at Trerice
Your bot has made some strange edits to article Trerice on 03:12, 13 May 2015 which has resulted in several external links in refs being hidden. Where previously a ref was "See[External link]", your bot appears to have changed it to "[External link See]", which gave the result "See". (the word "See" was placed in front of the ext link to stop bot messages highlighting a bare URL). Please look at the reflist for the article. This is a problem which I would be grateful if you would address, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC))
- Lobsterthermidor AWB did things correctly. One doesn't use just "see" and one doesn't surround the url with brackets. The "See" should be removed... Either put a title in the ref or remove the brackets. They are also not external links. If they are inside ref tags, they are references. Bgwhite (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC))
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 20 (calendar).
- References are now always in the right order. Also, the reference list now only shows references used on the page. 
- You can no longer create an account with a colon ':' in it. If you already have one, it still works. 
- The toolbar in VisualEditor now looks different. It is easier to see the icons. 
- You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday.  
- UploadWizard now shows better matches when you add a category to your file. 
- A test about VisualEditor will start on the English Wikipedia on Thursday. 
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 21 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join a technical meeting in France this week.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey I added the sections to create a more substantial article. Instead of deleting please just change the references as necessary. Thank you, given the subject is a very personal one for a lot of people rather then press revert edit the page. This would allow people to recognize a modern world problem that's really not different from the other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgbug3 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Dgbug3 It is your job to add references, not mine. You are the one adding the material. You just added over 100 links. They range from unreliable sources to good sources. If they are just listed one after another, it does no good. Please follow WP:CITE. Look at other articles and how they do them. If you have specific questions, please ask me. The article needs some severe cleaning up or it will be reverted again. Bgwhite (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- What a mess. Makes you wonder how academic inflation expresses itself in daily life... Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
T.Y. Lee conclusion
Hi, Did you delete the conclusion I added to the entry on the Malaysian architect T. Y. Lee? I was trying to add more context, to possibly move the article out of the stub class. There isn't much information available on this once important architect, so the info. is valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAHinch (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- MAHinch Wikipedia is not a report. We don't do conclusions. Bgwhite (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for correcting my formatting mistakes! Archeophis (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I just thought I should say make sure that you do not break anything with AWB. You seem to have made an odd edit on 2014 International Champions Cup that only broke the table on the page. The edit did not seem to do anything other than break the table and change the title to a perfectly fine reference. Not a huge deal, but just be careful in the future. Try previewing the page when doing more technical actions like that. Thanks. SAJ (T) 20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Need an awake admin
A new user and their sock are running amok on Manhattan, mass-deleting stuff, edit-warring, and pretending to actually be at war with each other. I posted a notice on Malik Shabazz's talk page over an hour ago, but like nearly every other admin in Christendom, he is AFK. Care to look and block them? The two accounts don't merit going through normal channels (have both been warned hours ago) because he is so obvious. I promise you they are the same person. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Softlavender Well, awake doesn't mean thinking. Then again, "thinking" and "admin" have never been used in the same sentence. I protected the article and blocked HofstraStud, but I wasn't sure about EliteSchoolKid. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. :-) Here's the tale on the puppetmaster: EliteSchoolKid created HofstraStud mere seconds after I warned him about edit-warring. HofstraStud began by backing up EliteSchoolKid's disruptive edits about Hofstra with "citations": , ; until I warned him about sockpuppetting. At that point, he went into an elaborate charade of arguing with his own sockpuppet , , etc., and went from disruption to wholesale vandalism. Since it's a holiday weekend in the U.S., he had quite a good time of it. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, in Manhattan, on the "Eduacation and scholarly activites" section, could you please change " Yeshiva University, and a part of Hofstra University and Fordham University campuses. " to "Yeshiva University, Fordham University, and a part of Hofstra University campus." According to Fordham's website, it has two main campuses . Fordham has an 8 acre campus in Manhattan that includes general undergraduate Fordham college , both graduate and undergarduate business schools , School of law, School of social work, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, School of Continuing and Professional Studies and School of Education.. Its a full campus with many buildings. As for Hofstra, they have executive MBA classes inside a room at Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital in Manhattan. That might not be classified as a campus.--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You have been reverted once again on Manhattan. And I can't help you because you protected the article.--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit broke something
() Please can you fix it? --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Weird. Looks OK now. Ignore and thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit to the St Helena Airport page (via bot)
Can you help me understand the significance of adding 'name="saint.fm"' to the <ref> tag [Line 143]? I ask because the <ref> link is to the St. Helena Independent, not to Saint FM. These are separate organisations, though the Independent does publish via Saint FM's website. Should the 'name="saint.fm"' be 'name="st. helena independent"', or some such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgh House (talk • contribs) 12:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Burgh House It combined two refs into one. WP:NAMEDREFS can explain it better than I can. Bgwhite (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Please don't delete
The biggest economies
Or no kitten!
Laughing Elephant (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposed decision posted for "OccultZone and others" arbitration case
Hi Bgwhite, in the open OccultZone and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)