User talk:FutureTrillionaire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, FutureTrillionaire. 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)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
... you were recipient
no. 703 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

China (Religion)[edit]

Hi you have made certain edits in China article regarding its religion. Please don't forget to put religious stats in the infobox and it must be in sync with the pie chart. Make necessary changes which are required in the "religious section" of the China article.--Anandmoorti (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 February[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy on the "New Age" article, can you pitch in?[edit]

Dear FutureTrillionaire, - Back in 23 - 28 June 2013, I worked with you on the GAR of the popular New Age article, and the GA status was eventually maintained. Since then, the article has been expanded by well over 50%, largely by the talented Midnughtblueowl; and some of his/her strategies and reversions have struck me as wrongheaded. As a result, I have just posted a "Four items that need to be resolved ASAP" statement at the bottom of the article's Talk page, Talk:New Age. Two senior Wikipedia editors have already responded to it, including Midnightblueowl, and I wonder if you could ignore your college studies for a moment (not a great idea, I know) and pitch in before rapid consensus is reached.

Please do not misunderstand: I am not asking you to take "my side" on these items. I simply know that at one time you had become very familiar with the article, and that you handled the GAR very well. Also, I believe both of the major responders so far are not from North America, and I would really like a North American senior Wikipedia editor to assess the use-value of the "Movement" sub-section of the Definitions section (issue #2 in the "Four items" statement). Best, - Babel41 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)