User talk:JesseAlanGordon

Welcome!

Hello, JesseAlanGordon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Dotmatics, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dotmatics

The article Dotmatics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The reason why I still do not see neutrality with this article is that it reads a lot like a product page. Linkedin does not count as a third-party reliable source, please add some to address notability. OK, I've seen your sources, but I'm still concerned about the neutrality. This is not speedy deletion, but there is one week from now to fix this.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed what I saw as the top three non-neutral aspects (and another editor removed several others). I'm wondering if it's sufficiently neutral now -- I'd like to remove the "proposed delete" tag but I'll await word back from you. Sincerely, JesseAlanGordon (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you focus less on the products and services, and more on things like the history. Before I can give a complete green light I'd search for controversies too (yes, you are an employee, but on Wikipedia you'll have to not let that get in the way).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that later this evening -- adding more history and removing some product material. I think for "controversy" what you're propsing is something like comparison to competitors -- why a scientist would choose Dotmatics vs. Spotfire, for example, or vice versa. (I recognizwe that putting in the "vice-versa" is essential to neutrality, and I'll do so). JesseAlanGordon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean things like anti-trust cases (a comparison to other competitors is not Wikipedia's job).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no anti-trust cases or anything like that, so I focused a large set of edits based on two things: (1) focus "more on things like the history" and (2) "focus less on the products and services" (including moving some to history and some to references)

Ideally, mentioning criticism is best, but if you can't find any (I couldn't myself), then we may have to leave it at this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know what the criticisms are (I have also worked for Dotmatics' competitor), but that would be citing myself as a primary source! The "criticisms" would be the same thing as a comparison to competitors, which we've already rejected. The only item close to criticism I found published (having read just about everything published to create that history list!) was a frank discussion of how biotech firms preferred "cloud computing" over desktop products; and in the same article, how pharma companies were avoiding "small molecules" in favor of biomolecules because of the relative ease of making generic copies of small molecules. I could dig up more on that if you think it's appropriate, but I think it's only appropriate for a discussion of the general topic, not for a company description. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean criticism of things like business practices, not necessarily of the products.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the deletion tags because another editor declared this "spam" without explaining why. I am well aware of the Wikipedia definition of "spam" and this is not "spam". I fulfilled three editors requirements: to make the article cite notability; to ensure neutrality; and to cite history in detail. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

An invitation to the Teahouse!

Hello! JesseAlanGordon, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Cosmetovigilance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

RadioFan (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States elections, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Lynch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

GovLinks and CongLinks

One is for congressional officeholders and candidates, other for state government officeholders and candidates. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a long discussion ongoing about both GovLinks and CongLinks. Please contribute to the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CongLinks#Moving_forward -- GovLinks has been deleted and CongLinks has been stripped of its utility, and I am leading a discussion to restore them. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

conglinks

hi I see you are also editing conglinks. I am working on code and tools for that myself, http://openpubadmin.blogspot.com/2013/06/interesting-sources-of-data-on-congress.html hope you enjoy, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC) To James Michael DuPont: I see you reference OpenSecrets links from CongLinks on your "open public administration" blog -- it has been removed by an over-zealous editor from CongLinks. I have initiated a discussion to decide via an appropriate discussion which CongLinks to remove and which to preserve -- you might want to participate at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CongLinks#Moving_forward . P.S. I tried posting on your blog page but my google account won't let me (a work account controlled by boss) -- please open it up for anonymous posting!

JesseAlanGordon (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Is there a discussion/template page for GovLinks? For Governors? And how about mayors, Supreme Court justices, mayors, and Cabinet members? I use CongLinks for them but the comment above differentiates.

See Template:JudgeLinks for federal and SCOTUS. Also, you appear to be using an old version of Template:CongLinks as some fields have been added and others dropped. Both have Talk pages, as does Template:GovLinks for state government. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Kelso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Promise Ring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

IC50 image

Hi! I have a question regarding your File:Example IC50 curve demonstrating visually how IC50 is derived.png. From the graph, it looks like the inhibition goes down as the concentration goes up; shouldn't it be the opposite if our compound is an inhibitor? Also, I'm wondering about the units on the vertical axis: are they percents, or is it a coincidence that the graph starts at inhibition=100 for concentration=0? Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually an EC50 but there was a proposal going last year to merge IC50 and EC50 pages. But the purpose of that graphic is to show the concept of how the IC50 is calculated, which it does regardless of direction of curve (and regardless of scale of vertical axis). The vertical axis is intended to be %INH, which is why the highest reasonable value is 100%, but the method works regardless of the scale. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So for a proper IC50 graph, we should label the vertical axis "percent of activity", right? Then I'm still confused what a negative percentage would signify. Shouldn't the axis stop at 0%? AxelBoldt (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Most IC50 graphs show "percent of activity" as the Y-axis, yes. So by definition it goes from 0% to 100%. Often the highest value point is defined as 100% and all other values scored relative to that point -- by that definition it's always 0% to 100%. Often the %INH is defined as score against a standard control; if a value happens to exceed that, you could get over 100%. Sometimes the bottom of the Y-axis is also defined by a standard control value, in which case you could get a negative value. Generally a negative value means your assay was not well done. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the On the Issues page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Fixed it; took a few cleanup runs. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC

There is an RFC ongoing on an article you recently edited. See Talk:Cory Gardner#RfC: Is it relevant to include Gardner's track record on specific issues? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP address

Timotheus Canens please unblock me and please note that my IP address is valid forever. You blocked my account for the following reason: "Editing from 54.236.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by Timotheus Canens for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." I am not a technical whiz kid so I'm not sure what this means and I don't want to get involved in any insane Wikipedian politics -- I am a regular person, not a "web host provider" of any kind, and I just want to edit! I am in great fear of WIkipedian politics and conspiracies, so please don't "teach" me how to undo this -- just undo it! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a block on an Amazon EC2 range, and a quick check confirms that it's still in their published list, so I'm not lifting that range block. If you can explain why you need to edit from that range, we can consider giving you an exemption from the IP block. T. Canens (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what Amazon EC2 range means -- I am simply working at home like I always do. My IP address is 108.20.219.169. I "need to edit from that range" because it is my home IP address, and I am a normal Wikipedia editor. This REALLY reeks of something fishy in Deep Wikipedian Politics -- please advise -- in English -- what is really going on here and who you are really trying to block, because I'm pretty sure I'm just an innocent bystander in your shootout! Look at my edit history -- I'm just a normal person, not some Amazon-EC2 weirdo!

There's nothing political with these blocks. We block webhost ranges (including EC2) because they can be used by vandals to change their IP addresses rapidly and evade our blocks. Your current IP is not blocked, and it looks like that you are able to edit now. On the other hand, if you really have no idea what EC2 is, I'd recommend that you do some digging into why you were showing up in the system as editing from them, since that might be an indication of a malware infection or something similar. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I am not a vandal, so please unblock me! I read the dopey "process" to do this, and it says "ask the guy who blocked you." So I am. If this process won't persuade you, tell me who else to go to -- this is ridiculous! Look at my history -- I have cleanly edited Wikipedia for years now -- you have chosen to block me for no reason other than some kooky association with vandalism. Give me a process: someone else who will be more sensible than you, or a HEARING with some higher authority than you, if you will not be rational. Accuse me of vandalism, please, so I can defend myself, rather than asserting some technical association that I cannot control! You should stop trying to explain your faulty logic about how I am somehow a "vandal" and point to WHERE I am, or how I can get off your list! Don't you see that you are wrong? -- you are associating an innocent victim -- me -- for some technicality -- I have done nothing wrong -- and if I have -- TELL ME WHAT I HAVE DONE WRONG TO DESERVE YOUR ACCUSATION AND PUNISHMENT!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.219.169 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

JesseAlanGordon (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC) To Timotheus Canens I will address your additional comment that "it appears you can edit now." No, that was from a different location. At my home IP address I am still blocked and I demand that you fix it, or formally accuse me so I can defend myself. I believe your accusation is that I am associated with some vandalism scheme, but please elaborate so I can take this issue to higher authorities. You have cunningly arranged your "block" to make that very difficult -- I cannot write to higher authorities from home! -- but I will work around your block and I WILL PURSUE THIS! What you have done is WRONG and needs to be FIXED. I do not care about your ridiculous conceptual block -- all I want is that -I- can edit! I am not asking you to "lift a block" -- I am asking that -I- can edit, not the rest of your ridiculous IP range! To be explicit: I am accusing you of inappropriately blocking ME (I do not have any opinion on the rest of your block) for reasons that do not apply to ME -- I want to lodge a formal complaint against you and strip you of some of those "awards" on your page -- you are damaging Wikipedia and damaging ME -- if you want this battle, carry on -- I will battle you! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesse, what company provides the internet service to your home? Are you doing anything that would cause your home IP to be associated with Amazon? I can ping 54.236.0.0 and do a whois; it says it is Amazon. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for checking and explaining what is going on; I have no idea what "associated with Amazon" means. Of course I use Amazon.com to purchase books, and I get funded from Amazon via my website too -- but I think you mean service provider status -- we use AT&T and Verizon. But the issue isn't a technical issue -- my real issue is how I was singled out for attack by an administrator who declined to explain what was going on -- he simply blocked me and left me no recourse but to beg him personally, and then threw technical lingo around knowing I could not possibly understand it. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be -- and it is hwy editing Wikipedia is considered to be only for crazy people. I thought until now they were exaggerating -- but now I see they are right! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clear: 108.20.219.169 is not and, as far as I know, has never been blocked. You were able to edit while logged out with it, which wouldn't be possible if it were blocked. Now, two of your edits do show up as being from the blocked range (54.236.0.0/16), which is a completely different range from what you say is your home IP. But none of your more recent edits are from there. So maybe you were using a VPN service at that time, or maybe it was something else going on, but as far as I can tell there's nothing on this side that's stopping you from editing from 108.20.219.169. T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JesseAlanGordon, I am DoRD, another Wikipedia administrator and checkuser. Looking into why you were blocked from editing, I can see that, for some reason, your internet traffic was briefly directed through Amazon's web services a couple of days ago. I don't know why that happened, but maybe you were using WiFi at another location that uses Amazon's web services for their connection. However, you are now editing through your normal connection, which isn't blocked, and never has been. Your account has also never been blocked, so should have no problem editing at this point.

I assure you that there is nothing political about our block that you encountered, and just because it is in place to prevent vandalism, you are in no way associated with vandalism yourself - it is just a coincidence that you happened to see that message. Do you think that we can call this "resolved" now, or are there any other questions or issues I can help with? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DoRD, if other Wikipedia editors were as clear and as polite as you, we wouldn't have disputes and the outside world wouldn't consider us crazy. The issue is resolved, yes, but my resentment will linger -- I thikn I'm done with Wikipedia for serious work because of this and other "politicized" disputes. I'll use Ballotpedia from now on -- they actually WANT people to contribute! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've had negative experience, here. Yes, politics - both Wiki-politics and real-world politics - do come into play a bit too often, and that tends to make a less than optimal experience for everyone involved. That's pretty much the nature of any large group like we have here, and being insulated behind screens and keyboards just tends to amplify things.

It may not seem like it to you, but the admins above really were trying to solve your issue, but perhaps some of the Wikipedia jargon got in the way. Anyway, I don't know you, and I don't know what sort of topics you're interested in editing, but I hope you decide to stick around. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly believe that DoRD and EdJohnston were trying to help, but I feel I must lodge a formal complaint against Timotheus Canens. I was interested in making a big contribution in U.S. politics but last year I ran into some cabal of deletionists and discovered people like Tim Canens exist on Wikipedia. I DO think they are a literal conspiracy against third-party and minor candidates, funded by some major-party donors to protect incumbent politicians, and I think they have perverted Wikipedia for their anti-democratic political goals -- my goal prior to the 2014 election was to create pages and links for all major federal election challengers and many minor ones -- they fought me tooth-and-nail on that one, and I lost because I didn't know the rules well enough. I don't think Canens is related to that cabal -- except that people like him provide a means for the political cabals to exist. Yes, I suspected him, but my complaint is that he was dismissive and "deletionist" like they were -- it just didn't matter to him that I was demonstrably innocent; he would just go on blocking me. And he will do so in the future too -- nothing has actually changed, so sometimes I will be blocked because of how my internet service works. So be it -- the RIGHT solution is that I become an administrator. I will use my formal complaint against Canens to attempt to become one, so I can fight the deletionists as an equal instead of as an innocent victim. I was too badly burned last year to work on Wikipedia seriously without better tools to defend myself against people like Canens. Thank you for intervening -- your intervention says unambiguously that SOME people do care, and I will invest some time to try to fix the "Canens problem." I will write to info-en-o@wikimedia.org to begin my denunciation process of Canens, and if I am successful, he will get a "negative award" that means some other editor (me) has gone through a formal process to label him a "deletionist", so that others are forewarned of his over-zealousness; and I will end up as an Admin so I can defend myself against this deletionist and the others who will follow him. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Having volunteered here with Timotheus Canens for quite some time, I feel that you've misunderstood what he's said here. Although it may have briefly appeared that way, he didn't block you or your usual IP address. His responses to you may have been somewhat matter-of-fact, but I don't see anything that I would consider out of the ordinary. In reality, I think that you started off on the wrong foot by demanding that he undo something that he had not done. Anyway, you're free to file a complaint, of course, but all things considered, I wouldn't expect it to yield the results that you are seeking. As for your goal of becoming an administrator, please understand that administrators aren't appointed by any official authority. Prospective administrators go through a community process where they are (usually) nominated by another editor, then they are voted on - well, it's not a vote, per se, but it comes down to whether the community trusts the person to be an admin or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Canens left me with no choice at all -- I could not edit; the block referenced him; and the only way to reply at all was to write to him directly. I could not undergo any form of dispute resolution EXCEPT writing to him! Yes, I demanded that he undo it -- because he did it! His name was on it, and I had no other recourse -- explicitly -- except to write to him! Look how this looks from the blocked person's point of view -- he basically declared himself my overseer, and said "Thou shalt beg me to allow you in," and then did NOT allow me in, even when I demonstrated that I was innocent in his battle against Amazon. That is a deletionist attitude -- a proper response would have been, "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm fighting off some Amazon cabal and you got caught in the crossfire -- I've added your IP address to the exemption list". He still has not done that, so I will have to deal with Canens again when this pops up next time! The letter is in already in any case -- I will fight to become an Administrator on grounds that Wikipedia needs to balance out Canens' deletionism with my inclusionism! I have spent the evening reading about these crazy Wiki policies -- I really wanted to be editing political pages! -- so if you want to consider yourself an inclusionist, please nominate me as Administrator! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JesseAlanGordon. 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

Hello, JesseAlanGordon. 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

Hello, JesseAlanGordon. 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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JesseAlanGordon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing to warrant blocking! I simply edit errors -- look at my history!

Accept reason:

I've removed the IP block that was inadvertently affecting your account. You should be able to edit again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no block on this account, at least directly. Please give the exact message that appears when you attempt to edit, including any IP address within. If you do not wish to give your IP address publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to request unblock(please indicate if you are doing this). 331dot (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)