User talk:Xhienne

Welcome!

Hello, Xhienne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Eyrian 17:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is the site, Erik Berg, vandalism? Nirvana69 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site Erik Berg is in no way vandilism, he is a well known underground rocker. Just because you are not interested in that kind of music does not mean you should descriminate. Nirvana69 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Serge Gainsbourg

That final solution gets thumbs up from me :) Murgh ^disc. 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Murgh. As I said in the edit summary, feel free to correct (spelling, grammar, etc.) as I'm not a native english speaker. — Xavier, 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed pretty much a good fix, although I had a go at some small tweaks. That article could keep an editor occupied for a while if one got manic ;) Murgh ^disc. 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Ahhh thank you.... but the link in the article needs to be verifiable (the old link is not available to everyone). I've switched out for the archive link you found but someone needs to find a permanate link. Thanks for the helping me with the info ;^) - Davandron | Talk 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, a web page needs to be accessible but the actual article content does not. Instead of the link to webarchive that many may consider as ethically incorrect (since you have to pay in order to read the original article), I've put a full ref to the article in Journal of Chemical Education. Regards. — Xavier, 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P1

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P1, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mars

Je te remercie, Xavier, de ta aide d'aujour d'hui- J'avais travaille tout le soir, apres avoir trouve un jour speciellement por cet effort d'actualiser l'entrée sur la vie en ce planète ... Peût-étre, le travai a été sauve par ton intervention; merci. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.52.128 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola! De rien. J'étais effectivement sur le point d'annuler ce revert. Un revert est encore moins constructif qu'une modification jugée semi-constructive, et de la part d'un utilisateur possédant la capacité de rollback, ce n'est pas acceptable. Merci pour cette contribution de qualité. Au revoir et à bientôt sur Wikipedia. — Xavier, 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mais, nous avons eu encore des nouvelles, parbleu! Est-ce que faudrait-il parler des martians verts, pour travailler cet article? :-) A bientôt!

Bonjour. Même si je n'apprécie pas la méthode, il est difficile pour moi d'annuler ce revert car il n'est pas basé sur une supposition de vandalisme, mais sur le contenu que vous avez ajouté, et je ne suis pas qualifié pour juger. Ce que je peux dire c'est que vous citez un peu trop Mario Crocco, et que ça a pu paraître louche. Pour ma part, ce n'est pas mon domaine de compétence, donc difficile de savoir si c'est vous qui avez raison, ou celui qui a annulé vos modifications. Un seul conseil : comme il est difficile de discuter avec un anonyme (IP dynamique), ouvrez un compte sur ce wiki afin de modifier cet article. Vous mouvez aussi discuter, en anonyme, de vos modifications et de ce revert sur la page de discussion de l'article. Bonne chance et à bientôt j'espère. — Xavier, 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlexLevyOne

Nice catch on Alex Levy. You are fast! JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now editing as User:Blum41. Sockpuppet report updated accordingly, here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of this. This guy has decided to write an article for each and every member of his family. After his father, his mother, his brother, he has started an article on his great-grandfather. Sigh... You wouldn't believe how much internal links he has patiently created to those pages on WP.fr. — Xavier, 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is both patient and persistent, that's for sure. (I would write up a sockpuppet report for WP.fr too but I'm afraid my French is a bit too rusty for that; the duty will fall to you I'm afraid!) JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franckly, I resigned from WP.fr two years ago and returning to WP.fr just for the sake of hunting a sockpuppet doesn't really appeal me. If Alex Levy behaves badly there, he will quickly be blocked. And I don't doubt his dubious articles on his family will eventually be deleted if they deserve so. Cheers. — Xavier, 12:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, if you're not already there then I agree! Good luck to WP.fr then! JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo DiCaprio

I didn't delete the redlinked award as a falsity; I did so because it was unsourced. --Rodhull andemu 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not say this in your edit summary ? There is no reason to delete this, just put a {{fact}} instead, or better, do a Google search, it's not that hard, and you would have gotten a confirmation quickly. There are plenty of unsourced statements here, you don't have to delete each of them except when it's blatantly false or jeopardizing a reputation. — Xavier, 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comment in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that there are ways of autoformatting dates without linking them. User:Werdna recently applied a software patch to the Wikipedia site that allows exactly that, and several other further improvements have been proposed that would allow users to specify formatting and linking preferences independently, so you could choose to see dates autoformatting but not linked, linked but not autoformatted, neither, or both. --Sapphic (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sapphic. First of all, thank you for your interest in my opinion. To make myself clear, I'm opposed to any kind of markup for the sole purpose of date auto-formatting, that's why I voted so. I believe it wouldn't be too difficult to write a Javascript program that would automatically detect and auto-format dates according to the editor's taste/culture (maybe is it what Werdna wrote? I didn't manage to find out what it was). In that case, what a user puts in their monobook.js is not subject to any kind of policy/guideline, even if date auto-formatting is disabled at the WP level, and everything is fine for everyone. Regards. — Xavier, 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree with you, I think the reasons you just cited are much more substantial than the ones you mentioned on the poll page. Would you mind clarifying your position there, as well? It'll help prevent possible arguments over how to interpret the results. Also, you should know that — although it shouldn't affect the way you voted, given the structure of the poll — opponents of date autoformatting are also (in general) opposed to markup around dates of any kind, which would prevent a javascript solution from working, as well... unless you don't mind having dates inside quotations (for example) reformatted as well as the occasional misformatted date range written a little strangely, etc. Maybe that's not such a big deal if it's all done per-individual on the browser side anyway. I don't know. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. --Sapphic (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sapphic. I was actually thinking of a JS solution without resorting to markup but the issues you are raising are valid. Nonetheless, I'm sure some creative people around here would quickly find a solution, and this does not affect my opinion on date auto-formatting (which I made clearer on the poll page, as you suggested). Thank you for the time you took pointing me things I overlooked. BTW, I read that you might quit the project after the poll and I sincerely hope you will change your mind. The issue on this matter is not that important after all... — Xavier, 22:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I just reviewed it; it was tagged as an unsourced negative attack, of all things. Strange. Anyway, it's short but nothing which can't be saved once I restore it. Thanks for asking. It'll only take a moment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're all set. I need to log off; no need to respond. Have fun! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely welcome. Glad I caught you; I just logged back on! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elysium

Hey there! Thanks for raising your concerns. The last revision (that I deleted) was about a British prog rock group. If you'd like, I can unprotect it and you can see about writing an article about the Polish band. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it unprotected. Tell me if you need any more help with it! As for my signature, I dunno; it shows up fine here without any < /sub>. Granted, I added that code a long time ago, so the functionality or scope of the tag may have changed... I'll test it out. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the Movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist, the Movie

I do not think it is a good idea to tamper with the critical quotes in the Zeitgeist article. They are necessary for a clear and accurate representation of what the media have to say about this film. Given the strength of the feelings (pro or con) of many editors about this film, it is impossible to incorporate the substance of the quotes in the text itself, because it would be hard to reach a consensus regarding what constitutes a fair summary. That the site of The Globe and Mail is pay per view is irrelevant, it is an important newspaper and would be a credible source even if it had no site and one had to look for a paper copy in a library. It has been discussed ad nauseam in the article's discussion page that the quotes should be left alone.Sardath (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sardath. Thank you for engaging in a discussion on that matter. I have written on the talk page what (I believe) enfringes Wikipedia:QUOTE guidelines. I leave to others the decision to leave this section in such a poor state, or to improve it according to these guidelines.

After all, I don't care much about this movie and I have neither time nor desire to start an edit war on this matter. The whole section, as a list of quotes with little or no distance and synthesis, is inadequate and will eventually be changed by someone more motivated than me.

PS: And IMHO, for the lines I wanted to remove, they tend to discredit the author from a scientific point of view, as "Did the collapsing buildings on 9/11 look like they were being demolished? Then they must have been demolished. Did the 757 that hit the Pentagon's blast-proof walls fail to make a plane-shaped hole? Then it must have been something else." is exactly the foundations of scientific reasoning: if it doesn't look like a duck and doesn't walks/quack/flies like a duck, then any sensible person ought to consider it might not be a duck... I'm not commenting on 9/11, just on those very sentences that unveils the poor reasoning underneath. — Xavier, 13:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, the pay-per-view/copyrighted status _is_ relevant considering the length of the quote. Here again, see WP quoting guidelines. — Xavier, 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made myself clear. It is simply not possible to agree on a paraphrase of the quotes, so it is better to let them stand. They have been there for about four months. It is the best compromise possible. As for your comment that the Globe and Mail's article demonstrates poor reasoning, whether it does or not, and wheather the poor reasoning is the Globe's or Zeigeist's, is irrelevant to the issue of including the quote, the relevant thing is that this is the gist of the article. Presumably people can judge for themselves if the Globe's writer makes sense or not, we do not need to protect them from making a judgment.Sardath (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a PS, please see it as a wink; I also consider the movie as poor as the Globe and Mail quotation. As for the article, it is not engraved in marble and it has to change if quality standards are not met. As I said, I won't change the article content without other's agreement but please refrain from removing the {{Quotefarm}} banner as it reflects a fact that must change. This section can improve with your help if you stop reverting each and every edit, alleging that consensus was reached months ago. This article being protected, changes can occur in a more peaceful way than before, so let's try. Will you? Thanks. — Xavier, 15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not believe that the banner helps, it only invites edits with an agenda. I do not care what you think about the movie. No need to mess with this section, it is accurate and exhaustive. You may object to the style of listing quotes, but, as I said, a rewrite is not possible, better to have the quotes there and people can judge for themselves. Please read the discussion section carefully, you will see that there is a consensus on this matter that has stood the test of time.Sardath (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sardath, for the moment you are the only one that makes this rewrite impossible. Could you point me to the consensus you are mentioning please. All I see is about balancing pro and con critics. That's not my point. — Xavier, 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not "making the rewrite impossible." This a is very false statement. I only argue against explicitly inviting others to rewrite. I am not preventing a rewrite. And do not forget that it all started with you not liking a quote from the Globe and Mail and attempting to shorten it. Not a good idea, deleting a relevant quote from a credible source because you do not like it. You did say so above, that you did not like it.Sardath (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep saying "this section must remain as is" and you keep reverting each and every of my changes. Factually, you are "making the rewrite impossible", period. I don't agree with your way of reading WP guidelines, that's all. Now, calm down and let others decide whom of us is wrong. I'll bow to their decision and I hope you'll do the same. — Xavier, 15:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very calm, thank you. I never said "this section must remain as is," you are misquoting me. Or you are paraphrasing incorrectly. Which brings us to the main issue here.Sardath (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elysium (band)

A tag has been placed on Elysium (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Canniba loki 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Elysium (band)

I have nominated Elysium (band), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysium (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Canniba loki 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Request

Hello, thank you for posting the information on François Carlo Antommarchi. Would you be so gracious as to translate the Article into the French Wikipedia?

sidna(talk)

Hi Sidney. Unfortunately, I have resigned from French WP and I do not edit there anymore. You may want to look for help fr:Projet:Traduction/*/Aide/Demander_une_traduction there instead. Anyway, if you need help here, to better understand something written in French, feel free to ask. PS: I see that your share your last name with François Carlo Antommarchi; are you from his family? — Xavier, 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am of the same family from Corsica. However, François was never married and had no children. We are probably very very distant cousins, if at all. LOL!

sidna(talk)

Funny! I went a lot of times to Corsica and I love this island. I hope you have already had the opportunity to visit it. Cheers! — Xavier, 16:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyright issues with pictures you uploaded

Hi FayssalF. I have noticed there are copyright issues with many pictures you uploaded here and on Commons.

First I stumbled on File:Elmandjra.jpg : who is the author? What made you assert this photo has been put in public domain by its author? Can you point me to the text that say so please?
Then I noticed you also uploaded some pictures of you which you claim to be the author ("I, the copyright holder..."). This is obviously not the case. Can you please mention the actual author and send his/her permission to the OTRS team? Among those pictures are: File:Faybens.jpg, File:Braveheart fay.JPG, File:Bus manchester airport.JPG, File:Bus edinburgh.JPG (please check the other pictures of yourself if any)
Finally, there are a number of images you imported on Commons (and maybe here) from http://www.sajed.ir/, a site whose editor states that its content is under GFDL. The problem here is that there is little chance that this editor is the author of the pictures he is using (like File:Taleghani-big.jpg or File:Mersad.jpg) and therefore, being not the copyright holder, (s)he has no right to release them under a GFDL license. Can you please check the pictures you uploaded from sajed.ir and delete them? Thanks.

I know this work can be tedious but as an admin, I guess you know that abiding with copyrights is a primary issue. Thank you for fixing this quickly, else I will have to ask for the deletion of those pictures. — Xavier, 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xavier:

File:Elmandjra.jpg: I got an e-mail from the subject of the picture. I have no problem providing it.
These are all my own pictures. In other words, that is me. How can I prove that? I am wondering how sure you are when you say "This is obviously not the case".
The Iranian files were uploaded when the copyright policy and debates were still at their start. You can just delete them.

Note that most of the above were uploaded almost four years ago. If I had uploaded them yesterday I could be accused of not abiding by the rules! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tasty bits

I have noted your added references for a number of the lesser French fighter aces of World War I, such as Delzenne and Portron, etc. Some of the references will translate through Babelfish; some won't. Even in the case of the ones that can be translated, I hope that you will follow up by translating these references and incorporating them into the relevant articles, as Babelfish is but a poor facsimile of a translation. Your help on these articles will be very welcome.

Might I suggest linking translations (where possible) to the articles under the heading "External links", towards the bottom of the page? That way, readers can view and appreciate the aces' grave sites.

I am available for backup in citation, linking, and other items of basic wiki-editing if needed. And again, thanks for the help.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Xavier, I am monolingual. That, and the failures to translate, is why the translations are beyond my capabilities.

For examples of external linkage being used to supplement articles, you might want to look at Georges Guynemer and Albert Ball; the latter includes a link to Ball's gravesite. Scroll down toward bottom; external linkage is the article's last shot at imparting information.

It is unfortunate you cannot spare the time for WP. However, I am still grateful for your input into the bios of the WWI aces.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disintegration

Sorry to have reverted you there earlier, but if someting is covered and cited in the article body, then mention in the lead doesn't need a cite. Usually you would have been quite correct to question, but not in this instance. Best. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ceoil. You are perfectly right. All this was just a misunderstanding, only because I didn't pay attention enough and missed the section where it was detailed and sourced. Thank you for the note. — Xavier, 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elysium (band)

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.

A tag has been placed on Elysium (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Airlines

Hi. Regarding this, it may have or may have not been harmless, but it was unsourced. We have policies on content. Please let me know when I violate one of these policies. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Marais

I noticed you did some expansion a few months back on the Josef Marais article. Any interest in doing some research & turning it into more of an article? I would think he deserves a lot more of an article than we've got. - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jmabel, but I have to decline. I'm not very active here, as I'm mostly a MusicBrainz editor. I just fixed a couple of inaccuracies in Josef Marais's article but I'm not that interested by him (when I edited that article, I was more interested by the song Suikerbossie, which JM popularized under the name Sugar Bush IIRC). — Xavier, 00:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Xhienne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Xhienne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Xhienne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]