User talk:KirkCliff2

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, KirkCliff2, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!  Marlith (Talk)  04:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Soundboard prank call[edit]

I have redirected the article to prank call. The reason is that someone else proposed it and an IP address agreed. I agree too, and those three people make a consensus. Also, you said that my version didn't have any sourced statements, so I've redirected it to the better article, which has slightly more sources. I don't believe there's a need to WP:FORK the article anyway.

If you really think that you can create a good, non-stub article regarding soundboard prank calls, pease work on a WP:Draft in your userspace before putting it live on the Wikipedia article.

I apologize for calling the article "crap." I should have linked to the relevant policies first. But you need to stop reverting the article without even improving on my concerns. The only source that you've provided, a week after reverting back to your version, does not pass WP:SPS. The people are anonymous and are not experts in the field of soundboard prank calls and cannot be used as sources. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You again defied the rules by using improper consensus. Those statements of redirecting the article were based on a stub version of the article; had they seen my version of it, they would not have proposed it as such, thus you are still wrong. For that matter, those two people are not editors of the article per se and not enough for consensus. You have 24 hours to undo it or I will seek an administrator and have you banned from editing articles as you are unqualified to do so based on your inability to properly adhere to Wikipedia's policies the way they were meant to be applied, not the way you see fit to apply them. The source I provided was for the Skype bit, for which it is absolutely a valid source, since it's victims accounts of being harassed by said numbers. I don't know about you, but I work for a living and edit articles in my spare time and when I do, I follow Wikipedia guidelines as per the nature of the law, rather than spin my own misinterpretation thereof as you have. Noone else has objected to the article in its most recent state other than you and yet you feel as though you have complete authority over the article and your opinion reigns supreme above all others', which is not the case. I cited you on at least 5 policy violations which you selectively ignored as you had done up until that point. I'm sorry, but you have repeatedly disregarded the true nature of the rules you try to uphold and in doing so have violated them and many other areas also. I do intend on seeking administrative help if you fail to undo the move as you have no right to act upon the article or any article the way you have.

-KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking through your talk page, you have a repeated history of bad faith edits and causing conflicts and thus you should, in fact, be banned from editing altogether.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't like to fragment conversations, so I am repasting your comments here, and would appreciate it if you also replied here as well.
You are completely misrepresenting my views. I don't think nor do I believe I have empowered myself with any more authority than you, me, or anybody else on the website to make content decisions. Yes, I am the only one objecting to the content of the article. That doesn't meant that everyone else if for your version of the content, just that they haven't spoken up. That does not mean that there is a consensus for your version.
There is nothing in the WP:CON article that says that only editors of the article can make consensus. In fact, to resolve disputes between users, it suggests getting wider input from non-editors of the article, such as the village pump, WP:THIRD, or a requests for comment.
I looked at your source again, and no, it is still self-published. Anyone can comment. Their identities have not been verified and as such the content cannot be verified as to be true or not. It does not matter what the information is trying to cite if the source itself cannot be deemed reliable.
You are welcome to seek a third party to resolve this dispute and they will judge which of us has done wrong. I do not, however, take kindly to threats of getting administrators involved and banning me from editing. That can be considered to be harassment. I suggest WP:THIRD as a starting point rather than seeking administrative intervention right away. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Claim what you want, but you clearly have demonstrated a lack of proper judgment in the article and Wikipedia at large. You failed to counter my point that you engaged in a form of improper syntax and used two editors remarks on a stub version of the article to back your opinion of the more established version of the article, which was around before either of us was editing it. If someone were to object to the article's content, don't you think they would have done so? And you still are bending the rules and have this misconception that just because it's not immediately sourced, doesn't mean it should be removed off the bat. There are countless other articles out there that don't cite any references and yet they are still there.

"Threatening" to get an administrator to resolve this is not harassment, so don't try and add to your growing list of misinterpreted policies and make a further reputation for yourself as a Wikilawyer. For the record, there was never any official poll/vote (Wikipedia claims things aren't voted on but their idea of consensus polls is a form of voting) as to what to do with the article; just two people proposing an idea based on the fact that the version of the article they saw was too small to warrant being its own article. I reiterate the fact that your stubbed article wasn't sourced either, which means you had no right to change it since it was not of greater quality than what already existed. Third party resolution is of no help when you have repeatedly flouted the rules to your advantage and accrued a large number of people - myself included - who deem you as having edited in bad faith and have been disruptive too. If you can't learn to adhere to some basic principles of editing and conducting yourself, go start your own website where you have complete control over the content and, as policymaker, can be above the rules if you so desire, but this isn't your personal pet project to derail as you see fit. To that end, there are guidelines and administrators and a community-oriented construct to keep any one individual from dominating over everyone else. Should you be inadequate in following said statutes, the only viable option is to warn and, should you continue your disruption, bar you from doing anything beyond reading Wikipedia's content. And don't even think about sock puppetry because that won't help you either. Until this point, you have garnered a reputation for failing to edit articles in a tasteful manner. Although Wikipedia is open to anyone, not everyone is truly cut out for editing here and you may be one such person, which you will have to accept unless you can prove otherwise. I'll be seeking administrative assistance to restore the article and if you can successfully make a case for deleting the article without violating any rules in the process and your argument can outweigh mine in the opinion of a neutral administrator or whoever, then I will concede. Until then, the article should remain since you still have no valid consensus for removing it. KirkCliff2 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Yes, a lot of articles are in bad shape. That doesn't justify leaving this particular article in bad shape. You believe the article was in some sort of sacred, awesome form before I stubbed it, which it was not. None of it was sourced. None of it. In fact, my early edits to the article were to remove clealry promotional spam and the like, people saying "xxxx soundboard is the most popular" or "xxx website is a great site to listen to soundboards."
Stop attacking me. This is getting tiresome. Attack the arguments, not me. Stop threatening administrative intervention. There is only one problem here: the sourcing of the article. Source the article, my problems with it are done and done, and the other arguments about consensus, faith, etc. are solved. You've offered only one source and I've told you why the source is not good - and you've chosen not to even respond to that part in your last response, simply devoting your time to attacking me. hbdragon88 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm back and I see that you continue to irk people with bad faith edits. For the record, you are still wikilawyering and for that matter, your justification doesn't hold up.

Your philosophy is that any article that does not cite sources is immediately to be deleted. This is just articles of its kind; you need to look at the bigger picture and learn to try and contribute rather than detract from the quality of the encyclopedia at large. There is a due process in Wikipedia and if you truly feel that the article is not worthy of remaining, you can address it at AFD or RFD and get a true consensus at one or the other (not both) and honor the final decision made. Until then, you are but one editor among many and are not the sole decider of the article's content nor will you be and as such, must respect the community-based rules of Wikipedia and its editors as a whole and not in part based on your preferences. Good faith editing and acting in consensus won't get you banned from editing articles, blatant wikilawyering, however will.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm honestly confused right now. My first, and primary insistence, is that articles need to be sourced. There are many articles that have unsourced statement, as you have pointed out. You know what we do to them? We mark with fact tags, and eventually delete the statements, over time. Waiting a preordained amount of months for people to act/not act on these fact tags is bueaucratic and process for process's sake. I'm deleting it now and it can be restored when sources are found.
It has been some month time and you haven't provided the sources to prop the article back up. Now you seem to want me to go through process for process's sake. I don't want to delete the article outright, so my AFD would be speedy keep. I don't want to delete the redirect either, so RFD is not suitable either. A couple of people proposed the article to be merged as-was in my form; you insist that was not a true consensus. You're entitled to disagree with that. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You continue to wikilawyer and act like you own the article. You contradict yourself constantly, and you are not an admin, thus you are stepping way out of line. And you essentially cofirmed my point about the consensus: You made it retroactively based on two people's opinions about a stubbed version of the article which they made because it was a microstub. To achieve a consensus, you need to openly propose something either on the articles talk page or at AFD or wherever and usually consensuses require a good number of votes (frequently at AFD an article's candidacy will be extended to allow for more votes. Before you delete it, what say we go to an actual admin and have this issue resolved since neither of us can agree on something. Personally I think it would be helpful to restore the article to how it was and let the experts decide what to do with it. It's not just you and I who want to read the article, many people did and still want to.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin? Whatever gave you that idea? And what does me being an admin or not an admin have to do with anything, regardless? I'm not using my tools in any way that would benefit me personally.
And why are you ignoring my remark that neither AFD nor RFD are suitable venues for discussing stubbing and merging of this article? They deal with deletion of unsuitable articles. In any case, I did request a WP:THIRD some time ago, but nothing came out of it. I would welcome further opinions on this subject. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, can we say abuse of power? If someone with a track record like yours can be an admin, then miracles truly can never cease. What next? George W. Bush becomes poet laureate? No offense to Bush, I think he did a solid job as president but his English was far less superb. I have not ignored your remark and I disagree. If you actually looked at AFD you'd see that the articles proposed are merely the more dubious ones that are above CSD but that editors still believe do not meet the requirements at large for being an article. If you are so adamantly against what everyone else is for, maybe you should reconsider your stance on the article. As an admin, you should know the rules better than I and yet this is not the case. You've utilized your position to disrupt Wikipedia and aggrandize your actions you're justified completely. I'll make a request for mediation tomorrow night and see if that produces anything. But for the record, my talk page has been clean since day 1, yours is littered with complaints against you.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) You're living in a reverie and not being realistic in how you edit on Wikipedia.

LOL, now you're running the admin abuse argument at me? Sorry. I haven't used my administrator powers at all during this dispute. I've edited this article as an editor, not as an administrator. Ther'es no abuse here. I haven't done AFDs in a long time, only know that if you propose merging, they're going to go after you. They're going to bring up GFDL and that everything needs to be properly attributed. You're the only one who has opposed my version of the article. I'm the only one who has (so far0 opposed yours. I'm not fighting the version of the article with "everyone else", only you. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironically you haven't denied being a wikilawyer. At all. And to some extent people did fight your version of the article by complaining that it needed more info, namely stuff my version, which was just an enhanced version of what already existed and that everyone was fine with, had in it. You still make no sense half the time and this argument is fruitless. Technically speaking, if you cared to be fully literate in Wikipedia's various policies you'd know that I've been correct thus far, particulalrly that you had no right to make drastic changes to the article without a full consensus, secondly you had absolutely no right to dispose of the article altogether without directly proposing it first either on the talk page or at AFD and you did neither nor did you familiarize yourself with the deletion policy and you definitely ignored Ignore all the rules. Retroactively justifying your actions on what one person said and another agreed to based on seeing a microstub version of the article is not even remotely considered a valid consensus. Have you ever heard of a two-man jury in any trial, much less a major one? You have been as bureaucratic as can be and should consider working for the government. You haven't denied either that you've got a bad track record with your editing. You're lucky noone's lodged a complaint against you yet. My edits have always been mainly subtle and appropriate and not likely to anger people. I have gone and rewritten parts of articles that were written in broken English or with kids' grammar, I have once or twice removed offensive text that had no place in an article, but I've never been one to remove something for all the wrong reasons nor have I deliberately twisted the rules to my advantage and made disruptive edits. You've practically made this place an anarchy. Personally, I think you have bigger fish to fry than this. I think that rather than debate with me endlessly while we cite virtually every policy page in some way or another you should just restore the article and instead of causing problems for everyone, try and be productive, perhaps try and look for sources too if it means that much to you or simply walk away and let things run their course. If this is not a viable option for you, then I will seek mediation because I believe in preserving an article and I oppose wikilawyering strongly. 03:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to get mediation, what are you waiting for? Stop claiming that your'e going to get mediation and not doing it. You've been clamoring for internvetion since 6 September and now it's 27 September. You haven't even responded to the MedCab page that I created, instead choosing to pen a 400-word response to my last post. Do it. I've gone to WP:THIRD, WP:MEDCAB, and might just as well have to take it to WP:RFM. Note that those venu

es deal with content, won't deal with your allegations of my misbehavior. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You never said you had gone to mediation cabal. Mind you, I attend to Wikipedia in my spare time. I'm not always around. Why don't you allow me to handle this. Mind you, I've never been in this situation before so it's a little nerve-wracking and the only reason I never went yet is because I was hoping to resolve the issue with you without having to take further actions, but you seem unwilling to compromise so I guess this is the only option left.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal[edit]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-24/Soundboard prank call hbdragon88 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have escalated this issue to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Soundboard_prank_call. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Soundboard Prank Call[edit]

I have agreed to mediate your dispute and all relevant discussion should be directed to the case page. Before we begin I need agreement from you that you will not edit the article until the dispute is resolved. I hope to see commnents from you there. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk Contribs 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Indecent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor, Canada (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) 10:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of unusual deaths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intoxication (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) 10:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Yew've hid behind this phone long enough...why don't ya come and see me? Duncan's Drunken Destruction (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Number styles[edit]

First of all, kindly drop the snarkiness you displayed in this edit summary. Secondly... read other people's edit summaries. As I noted when I reverted you (the only time I've reverted you, btw, so if it's happened before I'm definitely not the "only one"), WP:NUMERAL dictates that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". (Since "killing three people and injuring two hundred and sixty-four" looks weirder that "killing 3 people and injuring 264", the latter's preferable in this case.) I'm all for the one-nine/10-∞ rule in general, but switching from figures to numerals mid-sentence can appear arbitrary to readers unfamiliar with that convention; if you disagree with the policy, I suggest that you take the matter up at WT:MOSNUM. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You clearly left out the part that says:

As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred); those requiring more than two words are given in numerals (3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to both ordinal and cardinal numbers.

And you are being a bureaucrat by twisting the nature of the rule. I can assure you, than anybody with expertise in writing and Wikipedia policies, that ISN'T a bureucrat, will side with me. IF you mentioned the part I quoted, then there's no infraction on my part, since triple-digit numbers are written numerically, regardless. In any article with any sense of formality, my style is the one that would generally be followed, and in fact, I'm changing it to be consistent with other areas of the article. YOU relying on numerals mid-paragraph, conflicts with the rest of the paragraph and article where words are used accordingly, and THAT is confusing for readers. Paragraphs as a whole are just as important as individual sentences. That being said, if you insist on a method that somebody else will inevitably override, I'll happily have an open discussion on the talk page to settle on a consistent style for the article, if you'd like. If there's a majority consensus either way, it must be respected by the other party, agreed? KirkCliff2 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think you've reached the revert limit, per 3RR. In such a case, since I made constructive edits overall, the tiebreaker would go to me. KirkCliff2 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to read that policy more closely... That's the general rule; the "comparable quantities" clause is listed under "frequent exceptions". Regardless, yes, feel free to open up discussion. However, you should note that I'm not the only one who's reverted you (in fact, I've only reverted you once, so I'm definitely not at 3RR), and that several highly-experienced users appear to agree with me (including The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), who, despite holding the title of "bureaucrat" is actually a very good content editor). So yes, obviously I'll defer to consensus, but I suggest you take a step back and consider that you could be the one who's misunderstanding things here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A bureaucrat can't be a good content editor. Did you read what I wrote? You can't point to a triple-digit number as a means to justify using the "frequent exception," since the general rule already prohibits using words for such cases. The exception is for single and double-digit numbers only. As such, you really have no argument to stand on. And just because somebody reverted my edits, doesn't mean they're justified. I instituted more formal numbering in the lead. At one point, somebody tried to undo my contributions when the editing was rapid-fire, and someone else almost instantly restored my method. Also, the policy page's lead clearly states: " Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article," and "consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise." And consistency, which is the ultimate rule which the sub-policies must nevertheless adhere to, and are designed to help create, not deteriorate, is what I was trying to achieve, before bureaucracy intervened. I've been editing on here long enough to know what I'm doing, and the one reason you cited for creating inconsistency in the larger article, besides pointing to others who reverted my edits probably out of preference, not policy, is ultimately predicated on a fallacy. But, please, try and act like you know the rules all you want. KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You cannot point to isolate aspects of a larger rule, itself bound by the rule of the overall objective of said policies, while ignoring other elements which would contradict your argument, and not consider yourself a Wikilawyer or bureaucrat detracting from the quality of a very important article on Wikipedia. I didn't change the numbering style purely because I felt like it; I know how the rules tie into each other, and how a quality article should appear. People who feel otherwise in cases like this, either don't see the bigger picture, or they don't properly understand the rules. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cockfosters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • Of note in Cockfosters is [[Trent Park]] which serves as a [[country park]].;[ Christ Church, Cockfosters was founded in 1839.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Harlem apartment explosion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Metropolitan Transportation Authority, WCBS and WABC (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) 09:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cock o' the North (music) 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:
  • /ref> Some writers have noted a similarity to the 17th century English tune "Joan's Placket is Torn]]", which was mentioned by [[Samuel Pepys]] and is in [[John Playford]]'s work, ''[[The Dancing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Talking Machine Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Moran. 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) 08:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salem Fields Cemetery, Brooklyn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Guggenheim Museum and Machpelah Cemetery. 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) 08:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Sod (insult) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sod (insult) 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/Sod (insult) 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. : Noyster (talk), 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, KirkCliff2. 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)

Reference errors on 24 January[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) 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Titanic (1997 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)