User talk:CartoonDiablo/Archive 4

VSP

Considering you made no comment on the talk page and another editor also believes it should not be included, I cannot accept your assertation. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious. Exactly what were you going to report with this? Arzel (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, I don't see that any report was filed and reverted. WP:BOOMARANG would certainly have applied, though. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Very Serious People. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Very Serious People. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Very Serious People shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yworo (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

What to do when he's gone, eh? I read stuff in his books, articles etc. that I see nowhere else. Ah, well. 86.180.158.124 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Very Serious People. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I believed I was editing for a consensus in tandem with other users. Essentially there were two issues: (1) involving whether or not to keep an image and (2) involving sources. Some of the reverts for the first issue done to maintain a discussion until a consensus could be reached for an issue (and actively went against what I believed to be true). For the second issue, I believed reached a consensus in a noticeboard, I edited in tandem with others (diff)(diff) to maintain it. Even the user that reported me believed that was the consensus
I realize ignorance is not an excuse but it seems punitive when everyone believed there to be a consensus and I was editing for it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Editing for consensus", whatever that may mean is not a valid reason to edit war. As the matter of fact, there are no valid reasons for it. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I believe you have several problems: (1) you don't understand WP:3RR; (2) you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS; and (3) you misinterpret other editors' comments. With respect to the third reason, your notion that Yworo believes that your edits represented the consensus is wrong and the diff shows that. Similarly, your idea that the discussion at WP:BLPN supported your edits is also misguided.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How am I misinterpreting it? Yworo didn't say "no such consensus exists" etc. it was that "consensus does not justify edit waring" (my wording, not Yworo's). Was it simply a case of edit-warring with multiple users (diff)(diff) and I just happened to be doing it the most? CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of Yworo's comment was literal. Yworo doesn't say your edits were in line with any consensus. We'd have to ask Yworo whose interpetation is correct. Either way, you had 6 editing cycles, 5 of which were clear reverts. No one else came close to that, and no one else breached WP:3RR, and no one made the kinds of comments you did at WP:ANEW, which, to me, meant you had learned nothing from this content dispute. I'm going off-wiki now and will let an uninvolved admin respond to your unblock request. I suggest you take the time to reflect on your own conduct and what is expected here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not believe any consensus existed, I was simply stating that even if one did exist, it would not in any way, alone or together with other editors, provide any justification for any single editor to violate 3RR. Yworo (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you?

CD, is User:74.113.108.3 you? I noticed that the IP was from Pennsylvania, am I wrong in surmising that you are from PA as well? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No but based on their WHOIS its from a university (probably an open proxy), but yes I am in Philly. I remember reading somewhere that someone else who edited the single-payer page (Scjessey?) was also in PA. Looking at the article history there are apparently various IPs that only made edits to single-payer (ie here and here) although obviously not as involved as that one.

Actually I posted on their talk page to get an account for almost this exact reason, they were yelling at everyone and as an IP could be construed to be me. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

You'd better look at the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Use of primary sources in Very Serious People. The consensus now is that the sources are not adequate and that it shames Wikipedia to include such rubbish. Yworo (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Very Serious People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Hayes (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) 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation notification

This isn't a warning, in the Wikipedia sense, but Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - T P 13:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

You are edit warring again and not using the talk page. You've been taken to ANI on this in the past and have two blocks for edit warring. Please revert your edit and engage on the talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this was a mistake on your part. If it was in fact deliberate then please regard this as a final warning not to delete massive amounts of sourced material. If you do so again you are likely to be blocked for disruptive editing. If your edit was in fact a mistake please ignore this message with my apologies. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was, sorry about that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SVG graphs

Hi there,

I sometimes spend some time doing jobs listed on the illustration workshop, and one of them was commons:File:Union Membership and Support.svg, which I re-did in gnuplot. If you like the results, I'm happy to do some more graphs - mail me Excel files and I'll upload SVGs. Also, I've been putting gnuplot code into my uploaded files, so if you're into that kind of thing, you can just make SVG files yourself with gnuplot.

To get my attention, drop a note on my talk page.

--Slashme (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see I uploaded the file to commons:File:Unionchart.svg by accident: I've requested a move. --Slashme (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Am Legend (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine intervention (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) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??

I suspect you placed your warning in the wrong section. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a psychologist?

Hi, I am looking for psychologists to help add unbiased content on psychiatric articles. Currently this area is dominated by medicine professionals and does not obbey to the neutral point of view for wikipedia. Thanks! Booklaunch (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate information

Please do not put duplication information into articles. Please do not use Blogs as reliable sources. Arzel (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do continue to include duplicate information? Arzel (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Notice

For your information, Azrel has just been taken to ANI by another editor. I mentioned your recently filed edit-warring report there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern strategy

Please take a look at this article. My comments are on the talk page. I believe you've been involved in some of the edits, and I'd like some feedback in trying to clean up this article, make it more objective. My talk page comments are here --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_strategy#Weak_intro.2C_maybe_even_a_one-sided_slant 10stone5 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women

Stop edit warring - this is a warning as I'll remind you that the article is under discretionary sanctions, so you can disregard 3rr protection (see WP:0RR). You're not reading the talk or edit summaries. The edit you changed was consensus and agreed to by Roscelese and addresses issues presented in the talk by multiple users and a lot of work to reach an agreeable lead. The final point we were debating, which I had already conceded my objection and for which you jumped in (and apparently didn't read), was not even reflected in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 14:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Abortion. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you edit inappropriately on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Chill, dude. We're discussing the wording. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Reactionary Mind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Burke (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) 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Single-payer health care". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 January 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 reverts at Single payer health care

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Single-payer health care, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rank-Raglan mythotype, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virgin birth. 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) 08:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fair.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fair.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dark Enlightenment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Dark Ages. 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) 09:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unrecognized state. 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) 09:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adware.W32.ExpDwnldr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adware.W32.ExpDwnldr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adware.W32.ExpDwnldr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Billionaires' Tea Party listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Billionaires' Tea Party. Since you had some involvement with the The Billionaires' Tea Party redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robo Sexual listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Robo Sexual. Since you had some involvement with the Robo Sexual redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CartoonDiablo. 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]

Jordan Peterson

Regarding your recent edits, which were repeatedly reverted and was asked to start a discussion, please start one so we can make a proper conclusion and consensus based on reliable sources without stumbling over any guilt by association which can be found around the web.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]