User talk:DWmFrancis
|
==Your recent edits==
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of the Book of Abraham[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Criticism of the Book of Abraham, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 11:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
DWmFrancis 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)I'm going to stick to my position that the pattern set in other articles on religious texts is the way to go. The article on the Qu'ran has no NPOV flag set and has small section on criticism that redirects to a separate larger article on Criticism of the Qur'an.DWmFrancis 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
BOA Notables and other thoughts[edit]
Sorry - I realized I posted my earlier comments on your front page, so I removed them.
Couple of thoughts - the fact that the Koran mentions the BOA doesn't mean that they were the same thing. I would be interested to see if you have other research that gives more credence to that connection.
Second - I need to read up on wikipedia guidelines as far as primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are concerned. I know that wikipedia says we should be very careful about primary sources, because we start to tread on thin ice as far as original research is concerned. I have been guilty of that myself in the past.
I do, however, think that some articles could benefit from weeding out amateur scholarship. There is so much of it on the internet these days and it is hard to tell the difference between solid, peer-reviewed work, and the rantings of a well informed amateur. But maybe that is a whole other discussion. Descartes1979 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
DWmFrancis (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, I agree that the reference in the Koran need not be connected to the LDS BoA. That is why in my last comment to you I said "a" book of Abraham was mentioned in the Koran, not "the" Book of Abraham. Still, it raises some interesting possibilities. I was not aware of the reference before, even tho it is mentioned in a footnote in "Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham" on page 297. I've added a bit to the Disambiguation section to reflect that. I also agree on the sources comment, etc. It's my plan to go thru the article one paragraph at a time and be scrupulously accurate in footnoting and referencing, including drilling down into the other citations and try to notate and clean them up.
Book of Abraham - recent edit[edit]
I am very disappointed at your recent edit on the Book of Abraham article. You and I both know that the controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham is directly related with the fact that the recovered papyri have been examined and bear little to no resemblance with Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham. Yes there are apologist stances on the issue, but to remove that statement from the leading paragraph was a gross disservice to the truth of the controversy. Continued edits like that will get you blocked from Wikipedia if you are not careful. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Descartes - I'm sorry, but you and I do *not* know that the content of the facsimiles bear no resemblance to Joseph Smith's translation of the text. Some Non LDS Egyptologists think they do, but I am not aware of any LDS scholar who has taken that position. In the absence of that the statement was unreferenced, inaccurate and misleading. I could have simply added <reference needed> but in the mean time the claim that LDS and non LDS scholars agree that the facsimilies are unrelated to the text is at least unsupported and probably wrong. BTW, Nibley and others have addressed this issue.DWmFrancis (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edit was not related to the facsimiles, but very clearly to the recovered papyri in general. Also, references are less important in the summary section, since statements there just summarize what is referenced in the article below. Later sections of the article are fully referenced and discuss the controversy. If you think there are well cited scholars that dispute the translation of the papyri fragments, then lets put them in the article, but that doesn't take away from the fact that every non-LDS Egyptologist that has written on the subject agrees that the papyri bear no resemblance with Joseph Smith's translation/interpretation. Hence the statement in the summary section. To be honest, I am starting to question your motives, because your language comes across with a heavy apologetic bent. I am actually ok with that, because we need an apologetic eye as well as a critical eye to keep articles NPOV - but please don't try to water down the article at the expense of the established and well referenced facts.--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your recent Book of Abraham edits[edit]
I just reverted three of your edits that you made on the BOA article - I reviewed them, and wanted to keep some of it, but in the end, each of the edits had what I believe to be a violation of NPOV or OR, and it was too difficult to try and keep some of the changes, and reject others. Here are the reasons why I reverted them:
- Your first edit here, removed the phrase "purporting to be the writings of Abraham" which is quoted from Times and Seasons, and is one of the sources of the controversy. This came off as a very POV edit by removing this phrase.
- This edit here, you removed the phrases "According to Joseph Smith's translation", and "it is a source of some distinctive and controversial Latter-day Saint doctrines". Once again, this appears very POV, as you are minimizing the controversy, and suppressing the idea that Joseph Smith's translation is different from everyone elses.
- This edit here you added the phrase "There is significant disagreement between and among LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and linguists concerning the interpretation of the facsimiles. Current understanding of ancient Egyptian religious beliefs is still somewhat fragmentary and the graphical and textual expression of those beliefs was very symbolic" -- this strikes me as original research, plus you put it right before a previously entered reference, which made the phrase seem to take on the verifiability that was already established, when in reality the reference has nothing to do with this sentence. Also, you added in the section about the other Book of Breathings and difference between them and the Joseph Smith Papyri. Please, lets dicuss this further on the talk page - please review my comments there.
--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For diligence in checking references which resulted in identifying a crucial piece of misinformation, which was subsequently and appropriately removed from the article Book of Abraham. Great job! --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
Book of Mormon[edit]
Please do not make edits to the BOM article until you have discussed the issue on the Talk page. This article is highly charged and in order to keep the POV tag off we MUST discuss every edit BEFORE it is made. It took weeks and weeks to hammer out compromises in order to remove the POV tag. Please respect those who have worked on that article before and bring your issues up on the Talk page BEFORE making edits. I will continue to revert your edits (which seem to be clear POV in my opinion) until you start discussing things on the Talk page FIRST and get a CONSENSUS agreement on the new wording. (Taivo (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
- We have asked you several times now to STOP making edits on the Book of Mormon page without discussing those changes on the TALK page FIRST. As we have asked before, respect those who have gone before you and DISCUSS your changes BEFORE you make them. (Taivo (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
- I'm not sure if you are watching my page, so I'll place my response to your comment on my Talk page here as well:
- I'm afraid you won't get far [comparing edits in the BOM to edits in the NT] because you are comparing apples and oranges. The BOM is a unit that can be traced from a single source in 1830 (the first printed edition). That single source has been subject to X number of changes in 178 years of editing and printing. The NT is NOT a single source. It is composed of multiple copies (the Greek manuscripts, of which there are several hundred) of multiple documents (the 20-some-odd books of the N.T.). You can't even reasonably compare one book of the NT with the BOM because we do not have the original author's copy of any of the books. There is also the problem of time-depth. It is entirely different comparing 178 years of a document's history after the printing press to 1900 years of a document's history, 1400 of which were before the printing press. Any comparison is absolutely meaningless since you are comparing totally different things. I will oppose any such comparison being placed in the BOM article because it is irrelevant. (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
- I'm not sure if you are watching my page, so I'll place my response to your comment on my Talk page here as well:
Image copyright problem with Image:OsirisDenderaI.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:OsirisDenderaI.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why there is a neutrality tag at the top of the page? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits at Book of Abraham[edit]
Thanks for your recent edits at Book of Abraham. A quick comment - You made one particular edit which stated essentially that there is a lack of agreement on the meanings of the images - or something to that effect. While this may be partly true for facsimile 2 - it is definitely not the case for facsimile 1 and 3. Everything that I have read from Egyptologists, Mormon and non-Mormon is pretty consistent - yes there are some minor details that are off, but these are VERY minor, and appear to be attributable to the honing of the ability to translate and interpret over the last century - but again, the differences are very minor - 99% of the interpretation is agreed upon by everyone who has looked at it.. To make that statement in the article is quite misleading in my opinion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Descartes - Actually I was going to remove that material today - on further reflection I thought it was already covered in Rhodes' comments.
Regarding the details of the publication date, I'd like to leave that in as relevant to when Smith developed his ideas regarding the meaning of the images. It has been asserted that he purlioned ideas from the Masons. If he made statements concerning the meaning of the images before he became a Mason, I think that's very relevant. DWmFrancis (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Image without license[edit]
Unspecified source for Image:Fac2TimesandSeasons.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fac2TimesandSeasons.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:Fac2Full.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fac2Full.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:Fac2Fig13.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fac2Fig13.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:Fac2Fig9.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fac2Fig9.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
File source problem with File:OsirisDenderaI.gif[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:OsirisDenderaI.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Fac2Fig7.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Fac2Fig7.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Arrow Development[edit]
I saw that you have articulately listed all of Arrow Development's rides and each of their locations, but where are the sources for these? You may want to consider adding a "Ref" column in each chart to list the source for each ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Gonein60 - Thanks for that suggestion. I'll get those in once I have the tables done, since the main sources are another Wiki page, the Online Roller Coaster Database (Very handy!) and Arrow publications. I'm quite crosseyed at this point, with all the VBars and Hyphens running together. DWmFrancis (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Just remember that Wikipedia can't reference itself as a source, but the RCDB and Arrow publications would be fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Osborne PC prototype[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Osborne PC prototype requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Rinkle gorge (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Amusement Parks Article Clean-Up[edit]
Recently, an issue has been brought up regarding the notability of many articles within WikiProject Amusement Parks. As a result, a page has been created regarding this issue as well as a possible solution (which will be on-going). In a nut-shell, certain articles will be picked to be reviewed in each stage and the WikiProject members (you) will decide if the article should be deleted or kept based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
I hoping this will work and if it doesn't, oh well...I tried.
More info can be found on the linked page above.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Sent by Dom497
August 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ramit Sethi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ?p=252 | date= January 11, 2011}}</ref> In 2005 he received a Master of Arts in Sociology (Social Psychology and Interpersonal Processes, also from Stanford.<ref>Stanford Alumni Association</
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Edward Morgan[edit]
David, Do you happen to know when Edward Morgan passed away?—JlACEer (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
JIACEer
Ed Morgan died March 22, 2009 in Scotts Valley, CA.
- df DWmFrancis (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
RfC at WikiProject Amusement Parks[edit]
A change to the list of available statuses for Amusement Park infoboxes is being considered at the following discussion:
Please share any thoughts or comments you might have there. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are receiving this notification, because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Amusement Parks
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, DWmFrancis. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, DWmFrancis. 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, DWmFrancis. 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, DWmFrancis. 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)
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 |
WikiProject Amusement Park notification[edit]
There are recently-posted discussions at WikiProject Amusement Parks you may be interested in contributing to, located here: WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: You are receiving this notification, because you are listed as a participant of WikiProject Amusement Parks.
WikiProject Amusement Parks discussion[edit]
Hello DWmFrancis! Your input is requested for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Draft proposal for the future of WP:APARKS. Any feedback is welcome. Thank you.
Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Amusement Parks reliable source discussion[edit]
Hi, DWmFrancis. Your input is requested at WikiProject Amusement Parks, as there is a discussion about the reliability of some sources which can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Reliable source discussion. Thank you!
- Note: You recieved this notification because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Amusement Parks.