User talk:Dricherby

my favorite edit summary of the day

[1] --barneca (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the Canon EF 50mm lens talk page

If you are knowledgable about camera equipment, there are a lot of articles that really need a lot of work! Thanks for the help. Good work elsewhere too, I see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trespass

If you do not like the tone of the article, you can of course edit it. The rest of us (who are watching the article) will judge whether it is a good edit, and change it further or revert as appropriate. Please add not comments at the foot of the page, not the top. If starting a new subject, click the "+" at the top, which dies this authomatically. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Police Memorial

I've reverted your edit to National Police Memorial; the wording on the roll of honour is not "in the line of duty", but "in the execution of their duty". (The full text is "Police Officers of the United Kingdom Who have Lost their Lives In the Execution of their Duty As the result of Criminal Acts or In the Course of Effecting an Arrest or In the Performance of Acts of Gallantry or Other Hazardous Duty", but that's obviously too long for the infobox.) "Line of duty" and "Execution of duty" don't mean the same thing in this context; the memorial specifically does not commemorate officers killed in training accidents, road traffic accidents etc. — iridescent 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The phrasing seems rather unfortunate to me, which is why I changed it. I think that "Line of duty" and "Execution of duty" do mean exactly the same thing; the reason that, say traffic accidents don't count because the quote you give specifically states "as the result of criminal acts". Either way, the article should use the same phrasing as the roll of honour so I fully agree with your revert. If you have a cite for that quote, I think you should add it to the article; I agree that it's too long for the infobox. Dricherby (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the exact wording, together with the specific definitions of "in the execution of their duties" that they're using. As it's already cited-to-death where the definition is discussed (in the "Criticism" section), I don't see any particular reason to clutter the infobox with yet another citation; the website's already cited repeatedly in the article, so anyone ref-checking will reach it anyway. — iridescent 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, instead of adding loads of {{fact}}s to an article such as here could you please use a template such as {{refimprove}} or {{refimprove-section}}? Having lots of ^{[citation needed]} tags makes it really difficult to read an article. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfund

Thanks for your hard work on the superfund sites you recently edited. I know how tedious it can be entering data line after line, so I appreciate your edits. I especially like how you noticed that the maps have yellow for proposed and green for deleted, and added that to the tables. I just wish I knew how to create more of the maps for each page. I had one question for you. Do you think that the recent edit I did on the List of Superfund sites in Kansas is better than blanking the N/As? I only ask since it sort of serves as a placeholder showing that it was checked, and found to be null. In other words, it shows that the date isn't just lacking, but it does not exist. Let me know what you think, I'll look for a response here or the talk page for the Kansas sites. Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Yes, I agree that the dashes are better than blanking. I blanked them because "N/A" is rather "visually heavy" and make the columns hard to scan but I'll use dashes in future. I'm afraid I've no idea how to do maps, either. Dricherby (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the N/As looked bad. I asked skew-t to create more maps when time permits, since that is who made the other ones. I had started paring down the "see also" links to just 4 since there seemed to be too many, some of which were quite unrelated. Since you seem to be interested in the topic, what do you think of merging List of Superfund sites in the United States into Superfund as a section? I only recently thought of it due to this peer-review comment. Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems like a good idea, since List of Superfund sites in the United States is really a list of the fifty states, rather than the 1,300-odd sites.

In other news, I've noticed something of an inconsistency. The list of Superfund sites in Nevada included a non-NPL site, whereas all the other states I've edited have included only NPL sites in the list. I've commented out the non-NPL site in Nevada and added text after the table referring to it. Do you think that's a good idea or should be include all the non-NPL sites in all the tables? Dricherby (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is one of the several strange things that will pop up from time to time. It is a Superfund site like the link says since it is being remediated through the CERCLA law. However, it is not placed on the NPL, so CERCLA funding isn't used. I am not sure if this specific case is considered a "Superfund Alternative site." If so, then we could do what is done on the List of Superfund sites in South Carolina article. That is why I started adding the "Superfund sites" section to the articles. This differentiates the two. I'll look into it a little. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, according to this link, the Anaconda Mine is not a Superfund Alternative site. But on the EPA's website, it clearly lists it as a Superfund site, not a brownfield. I think this is why I left it in the table in the first place, since it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The white box for the non-NPL Superfund sites was a good idea. Keeping all the sites in the table looks cleaner. Cmcnicoll (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's one in Arizona, too! I think it's because Superfund money can be used for time-critical clean-up of non-NPL sites, though it can only be used for long-term clean-up of sites that *are* on the NPL. Dricherby (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the peer review of the Alaska Superfund site list. I requested peer review of this one first before doing the others since it had a map. I was hoping to figure out how to format the lead and everything else correctly, and then model the other lists after it, with the eventual goal of FL status for them all. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finlandia

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and have noticed that your cleanup of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandia_Vodka was reversed to its initial PR spin. If I can help in any way, please tell how (I can restore but do not know how/where to properly reason the restore and report the intentional PR). Anyway IMO it would be nice(and better) from ya to do that. Thanks. Ihosama (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would love for you to ed my rework of the "Russian Standard Vodka" article. The spin was there, though more professional. Most of the content had some reality embedded and was re-useable. Great xmas! Ihosama (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE My AFD's

Dricherby,

I saw your note. I'm puzzled as to why you would think I'd need extra reasoning behind my AFD's. WP:NOTDIR is policy, very much like WP:BLP is. When a BLP is nominated for deletion nothing else need be said exccept that it's BLP (yeah, I know,it needs to be looked at to be sure it really is BLP :)). Those articles violate NOTDIR in that they're lists, and NOTDIR is policy. When something is against policy, that , in and of itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to be difficult, rather, I tend to be black and white when it comes to policy. You follow ? KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 19:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding WP:NOTDIR. "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" means that they are not lists of L.A.T.s and they are not repositories of L.A.T.s (not that they are not lists of any kind and they are not repositories of L.A.T.s). It does not mean that lists are forbidden on Wikipedia because the first sentence of WP:NOTDIR is "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject." Note the specific choice of words: "Wikipedia contains many lists..." would be a simple statement of fact; to say that it "encompasses many lists" means explicitly that (some of) these lists are welcome.

The fundamental difference between WP:NOTDIR and WP:BLP is that it is, as you say, usually self-evident that an article is an unsourced biography of a living person. In contrast, some lists are directories and some lists are just lists. Therefore, the nominator of an AfD under WP:NOTDIR needs to explain why the nominated list constitutes a directory: it is not self-evident. Dricherby (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AfD

Hey! Thanks for your comment. I apologize for overabusing of the AfD process, as i know i've done. I have read the deletion policy and from the 8 articles i nominated yesterday, 4 of them are being voted for deletion. Also, another 5 articles of those i nominated were already considered and deleted. Notwithstanding, i'll take my time to furtherly understand the policy and to double-check the refs before proposing an article for AfD. To answer another little question, i love to patroll articles, that's the reason i nominated such a big amount of articles (i now i made mistakes i've already learned and still have to learn) and lately i've been fixing (and adding references to) them if i find the sources. Finally, i thank you again for your efforts on patrolling my behavior and taking a moment of your time to write me about them I really appreciate it. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[2] I laughed out loud at that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Lines

Thank you for your message. I re-added (in preview mode) a few blank lines between the last paragraph of Retirement and the commented-out section, and they do indeed show up on the page. Is this the intended behavior? Aednichols (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter issue

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disam pages

Removing a link can be considered fixing a disam page. I generally do it if it's a very common term. So it's not a "mistake". --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But having said that, I'll go through the links and see if I can specify any of them --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool

Hi. I reverted your recent changes to Liverpool because they replaced data that had a definite source with data that had no source (and, in one case, changed some data while still citing the same source). The changes you made look plausible but they do need to be sourced, especially in the lead section of a major article. On Wikipedia, a key policy is that even true material needs to be verifiable (i.e., backed up by sources) before it can be added. Other Wikipedia pages aren't acceptable sources but if other articles have sources the support the data you added, you can use those sources for the Liverpool article, too. Dricherby (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I linked to the wrong article; I got the numbers from List of cities in the United Kingdom. But it turns out that not only did I count wrong (didn't notice England was listed separately) but the population column there is not included in what references do exist on that page and now I'm doubting whether or not they're current. I've requested more references for the list; what you reverted Liverpool to is probably more accurate! -- Beland (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge-restaurant

Hi Dricherby, Regarding your comments: Ad 1. The title, I have looked for the right term in English before posting the article. The term bridge restaurant is used on the British website www.msatrivia.co.uk. Although you probably could defend Restaurantbridge, analogue to Italian:Ristoro a Ponte, as well. However I didn't invent this word myself.

Ad 2. I'll update the sources regarding the illinois Tollway oases, then it will stand until that website is changed again.

Ad 3. I had the intention to sort it from north to south as already done in other languages, after replacing the decimal coordinates.

Ad 4. I had the intention to create a complete list of bridge-restaurants world-wide. To complete the list I hope users add the ones in their one contries if needed. Complete, we'll never know for sure, because in the future new ones can be built or existing demolished. --JB63 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft: hyhens vs. dashes

G'day from Oz; one of your edits has come up on my watchlist. I don't really care about hyphens and dashes one way or the other myself (I usually use the "minus" key on the keyboard 'cause it's easier), but I just want to point out that with regard to Boeing airliners the one that started it all, the Boeing 367-80 (the prototype for the 707), was nicknamed the "Dash Eighty"; and the de Havilland Canada DHC-7 and DHC-8 were officially named "Dash 7" and "Dash 8". Does that mean anything? Who knows? "Dash 7" certainly sounds better than "hyphen 7". Anyway, just an observation on my part. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Similarly, the GE Dash 9 Series of railway locomotives but I think all of these are because, as you suggest, "hyphen-eighty" and so on just sounds clumsy. Dashes are appropriate for number ranges (e.g., "pages 10–15") but none of these things is a number range so a hyphen is just fine. Boeing's website uses hyphens (but, heck, they even use hyphen-hyphen instead of a dash so maybe we should discount them :-) ). Dricherby (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology

Dear Dricherby,

I see you've reverted my edit. In my opinion, the following is a tautology:

Russia is a federation which consists of 83 federal subjects. They are also known as the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

If a federation consists of subjects, then surely the subjects are its constituent entities, by definition of the word constituent? Qwertyus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "constituent entity" is an alternative name for these things and many references use that alternative. Do you think it would be clearer with quotes around the words "constituent entities"? Dricherby (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or maybe even boldface. Qwertyus (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- boldface it is! Dricherby (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Airport

Mozambique wasn't listed because it wouldn't be viable, And no im not just listing places you can't fly out of Shannon, The majority of these places were once served with an airline and if you want a reference to this you can go into routeshop.com BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.213.82 (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But all the places that were listed aren't viable, either — or there'd be flights to them! So, er, boom to you too. Dricherby (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bs2.jpg

File:Bs2.jpg I think can be fairused as a book cover, even though it's been "released" by the "author" - I wouldn't trust that release, but if it's true it confirms WP:COI suspicions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even at 924×1,280 pixels? When Wikipedia uses non-free media such as book and album covers, it's normally noted that the image is low-resolution. Dricherby (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless he's the copyright owner, posting a book cover without critical commentary of the book violates WP:NFCI. Dricherby (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the catch on Liverpool. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but...

Thank you for standing up for the subject-specific notability guidelines, which, after all, relate back to WP:BIO in the end. I have just re-checked the indentation of your comments, and please forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, but please don't dismiss aspects of the conversation relating to notability criteria as being "off-topic" - these points come up every time a first-class cricketer comes up for deletion - we're all too used to it now. I realize now you weren't referring to my comments, and I know I may be being slightly too bold in attempting to stand up for myself.

I absolutely don't mean this as a slight against you - just trying to protect my own foolishness. All the best. :) Bobo . 07:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But arguments about whether the notability criteria are correct are off-topic at AfD. The purpose of AfD is to discuss whether the article meets the notability criteria, not to discuss whether we should change the criteria. But it's never too bold to stand up for yourself — always do that! :-) No slight taken. Dricherby (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I should be *thanking* you for standing up for the criteria as you did later on in the debate... I hate it when I'm frustrated at myself and it comes across in my comments to others! One of my major faults. Bobo . 09:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Keep up the good work and don't knock yourself down! :-) Dricherby (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do very little work at Wikipedia these days. Once I've finished my current job, streamlining my subpages, I'm outta here again. Having 25 subpages for the same purpose is a bit ridiculous even by my standards! Bobo . 10:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Im not a grammar Nazi but this is really annoying me its McLaren not Maclaren! Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Duly noted. Dricherby (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I find it hard to imagine that all those articles had wrong stats, but if you've checked then I suppose its OK. Thanks for clearing it up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong and you were absolutely right. I have gone through each article and updated the stats through today and I have apologized to Herman.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Big Thanks

		The Good Friend Award
		Thanks for your patience and assistance in helping me rectify an innocent but significant mistake. — *Keithbob* • Talk • 16:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mining in popular culture

Hi there! You may remember the deletion discussion for "Coal Miners in Hindi Fiction", in which there seemed to be a consensus that a broader article topic of "Mining in pop culture" would be notable and worth creating. I've started a draft at User:Atlantima/Mining in popular culture and thought you might be interested in helping me out. Currently I'm just dumping a bunch of references there but it's a start. Feel free to add to it!-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Thanks for asking. It's not a subject I really know anything about but I've added a link to "How Green is My Valley", which was brought up in the discussions. I'll add any more that I think of. I'd leave the asteroid mining stuff towards the bottom, if I were you: people will take the article more seriously if it's mostly about fictional accounts of real mining, rather than fictional accounts of fictional mining. Dricherby (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I wasn't really considering the order of the links.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, though I mostly meant for the eventual article. Dricherby (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Benjamin

The Nigerian league may not be fully-professional, please see this. Giant Snowman 08:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary 2

You should discuss consensus on the talk page. I won't revert it again until the 24-hours is up.

The Ulrich reference, which this edit back-and-fourth concerns, is out of date. The journal's direction has changed recently and the publication material no longer uses the term "peer-reviewed" to describe itself. See: http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?viewby=journal&productid=45602 174.49.172.92 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has alreay been discussed on the talk page and this discussion did not produce a consensus to remove the material. There is no need for me to post a "me too" type comment to the discussion and I have no more detailed comment to add to it. Dricherby (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four editors commented on the topic. Three support the edit. If you add a "me too" that would be 2 of 5 in favor of keeping an outdated third-party reference over a primary source. As I said, you should discuss this, and your concept of consensus, on the talk page.174.49.172.92 (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong

"I have added more WP:RS to the article. I would ask that the other participants involved in this discussion re-evaluate their positions in light of this." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Lancaster

Looking at the edits that were made, there did not appear to be any substantive improvement, i.e. switching "among" for "amongst"? I took a look at both versions, before the recent edits and post-editing, and frankly, liked the earlier version better. 19:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

An article about a British subject will use the idioms and common use of British editors, that is why "amongst" although I do not like its use, is the operative word, rather than "among". As to other changes, this is the wickywacky world, and you are free to institute any changes you like, only realize that any editor can challenge or change those edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, with a modicum of research, I have also found the "among" not only predates "amongst" but also is not a typical Brit-speak word. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

No need for specific revision deletion, I've just deleted the entire page history. Recreate it as blank or whatever you wish. Any problems just drop me a note. Step hen 11:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Maritime disasters images

Most articles referenced in the list have images that could be added to the table. Also, by removing the side images and incorporating them into the table it expands the table and makes the description section easier to read. However, if you're troubled by it feel free to revert.Shinerunner (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Museums Site may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

developments of the 19th and 20th centuries were made here, mainly at the Old Cavendish Laboratory]], including the discoveries of the [[electron]] by [[J. J. Thomson|J.J. Thomson]] (1897) and the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 727

If a plane has undergone the action of being fitted with an engine then it can be considered engined, but it is the action of being fitted with an engine that we are calling attention to. If we are calling attention to the plane's having 2 engines then it is a 2-engine plane; there is no reference to a previous action.

The phrase both of which being closer in the article makes the phrase a modifying subordinate clause.

Stop regurgitating what you were incorrectly taught by your uneducated third-grade teacher and learn language through linguistics, etymology and, therefore, proper grammar and syntax.EtymAesthete (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Sockpuppet investigation re User:EtymAesthete

Hi. You may wish to have a look at and possibly comment at the sockpuppet investigation I have started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EtymAesthete, as I believe you had dealings with User:EtymAesthete and User:Brainiacal on the Boeing 727 article back in September 2013. --DAJF (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ballantyne Pier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain Courageous (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) 08:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit

to Banburismus. Λυδ α cιτγ 17:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

Leeds on 12th April 2015
Manchester on 26th April 2015
Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:25, 28 March 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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dricherby. 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]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dricherby. 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]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dricherby. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dricherby. 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]

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]