User talk:Kudzu1

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

Archive 1 : Archive 2 : Archive 3 : Archive 4

Feel free to leave me a message.



Reference errors on 2 July[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) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Packer article[edit]

Hi, thanks for the good faith efforts. I am making no effort to distort anything - particularly a single source, not sources, that you have added in good faith. I have no concerns over adding the intended information, it just seems that the wording could be more neutral. As shown now, it just seems more along the lines of the use of claim or other similar words that either draw into question what someone stated or leads potential credibility the wrong way. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to changing the wording, but the edit you are pushing misrepresents the sources, neither of which say anything about same-sex marriage supporters taking note of (or criticizing) Packer's remarks. My wording presents a context that is noted in the Schnecker report (and is independently verifiable at the linked article). -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not pushing anything. I was only trying to make it more broad-based, though unsuccessful in your view, which I understand and is fine. There is just one source noted, written by Schnecker. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There are two sources: the Huffington Post (using a wire source, namely Schnecker) and the Deseret News. I don't see how tarring those sources as "supporters of same-sex marriage" makes the wording "more broad-based", and in fact, it is inaccurate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess you're not seeing that I am acknowledging that it wasn't a successful effort. I have no concerns with that. The Deseret News source is a source for the talk, yes, but not a source for the concern or issue that is being addressed by the good faith edit. That is why I referred to a single source in what I have shared here. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I'm not understanding what problem you have with the wording and what you think it should be changed to state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess my initial thought was that in an effort to perhaps provide some measure of context, it lends itself to imply there was more broad criticism and perhaps overstates the shift. I am not sure that I have thoughts on revised wording, so I'll just leave it alone. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Third-party sourcing for rebel motivation[edit]

Let's work here on the specific issue of third-party rebel motivation sourcing here. This discussion assumes rebel motivation assertions by Russia and/or Syria will be reduced in other parts of the article. The threads on the Mediation page are getting unwieldy. I'd welcome any input from Darouet (who had a suggested reverted) or VQuakr, but suggest other editors refrain from joining this, mostly as a test case for collaboration. I want to use the the first or both AP articles:

Is this sourcing acceptable to you? If so, then Darouet or I will suggest a text. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing is acceptable. I'd be interested to see your proposed language. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll look to see what Darouet proposed earlier. But in general, the most frustrating issue with my experience editing this article is your side's reluctance, almost refusal, to propose or revise text that is suitable for you. Before this mediation started, it was almost exclusively revert in the history and "no" on talk pages. Just registering where I'm coming from, I'll do it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There's some history to that. I can only speak for myself, but back after the attack happened in 2013, it took a lot of effort to produce an article that wasn't dramatically slanted to one "side" or the other, and some of the Talk page discussions from then (you can take a look at the page's archives) make the more recent dispute look like Leave it to Beaver. (One of the editors was eventually banned after accusing VQuakr and I of being "intel boys", claiming Wikipedia admins were part of a globalist conspiracy, and abusively using several sockpuppet accounts for harassment and disruption.) After that dispute was sorted out -- and not to toot my own horn here or downplay the fact that consensus can and does change, under Wikipedia's policy guidelines, but a lot of the work done to get the page into a state somewhat resembling what it looks like currently was done by me, in what was then a fairly successful effort to compromise between the mainstream group of editors and the smaller group of editors who subscribed to the false flag theory -- the page was pretty quiet until Erlbaeko started making some significant changes several months ago. Then, on the other side of the coin, VQuakr and Sayerslle began pushing back on some of those edits (Sayerslle, who was never a terribly civil or constructive contributor, got blocked for edit-warring on it, in fact). And then you got involved. And then, for a stretch of several weeks, it looks like you and Erlbaeko were basically the only editors making significant changes to the page. And then came the major sticking point in late May, which drew several more editors into the dispute and triggered a round of scrutiny from editors who hadn't been active on the page in a while and were probably surprised to find some of the changes that had been made.
So, what changed from mid- to late 2013 to this spring? For one, the issue is older now. There are parts of the article that haven't been updated in almost two years now -- one example that struck me when I was going back through it this past weekend was a promise in September 2013 by Sergei Lavrov that Russia would be imminently producing evidence to support its claim of rebel responsibility, something I don't believe ever materialized -- and frankly, it hasn't been at the forefront of my mind at all until fairly recently. But for another, Russia attacked Ukraine last year, tossing a match into an online powderkeg. On a lot of Russia and Ukraine articles, the cast of characters on each side is remarkably similar to the group on this article. Back in 2013, I was much more active on Middle East-related content than Eastern Europe-related content, and my work on the Ghouta chemical attack page was a natural outgrowth of my other work on the Syrian Civil War topic. I think in light of Russian aggression in Ukraine and what seems to be the reemergence of a Cold War posture and attitudes between the West and Russia, the Ghouta chemical attack page and discussion has taken on that character. And an unpleasant character it is: speaking from personal experience, there is a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND tendency surrounding Eastern Europe content more so than any other I've edited on, and it has gotten profoundly worse since Russia seized the Crimea last year. Thus you get editors whose personal views are sympathetic to or antagonistic toward the Kremlin and Russia's "information war" policies clashing bitterly over everything ranging from substantive issues to utter fluff.
To make a long story short(er), the reason you haven't seen "my side" propose much in the way of new content for the article is because I think many of us tend to see what you, Darouet, and Erlbaeko are doing as an effort to expand the amount of space in the article given to airing a POV that we view as propagandistic in nature and fully in line with the Russian government's maskirovka tactic, the same it is using in Ukraine and elsewhere. We don't want to propose new content; we simply don't want any to be added at all, at least nothing to give Lavrov or Assad or their scant supporters in the West and elsewhere a larger platform in the article. And that's the issue that I think you intended the mediation to resolve, because this ends one of four ways: 1) we keep fighting over this until kingdom come; 2) one side or the other gives up and the other side does what it wants with the page without any of their valid input; 3) an arbitrator comes in and imposes his or her own vision, possibly handing out topic bans or locking the page in the process (this has happened before); or 4) we figure out a mutually agreeable compromise, at least until consensus shifts again. Of the four options, I prefer door #4, and I get the sense you do as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the history lesson. I don't mean proposing new content in general. I mean proposing any compromise text in response to edits or on the talk page. Maybe you did so in 2013, but I at least don't remember much of that this year. You're not a good example, but others have simply reverted or said no with vague waves to policy or no justification/discussion at all. I am hopeful we're getting to a better place now. I won't get in to it over your use of the terms propaganda and maskirovka, but know that I don't appreciate any use of them to describe anything I or others have done on the article recently. Period.
We were headed for #5, a mediated solution. And maybe we need to go back there. But for now I think we can do #4. I appreciate your efforts to continue to work collaboratively. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SSM in VI as it affects template and map[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam, I've been trying to work to keep the map on same sex marriage appropriately annotated. As you know, there is clear consensus on VI which about five editors agree is fully legal, but one person has been edit warring and failing to provide an appropriate reason... ironically contrary to his own past criteria. I recently reverted to another user's version of the map in which VI is light blue, though it really should be dark blue... I just don't have the ability to make such a graphic myself, but it was the most appropriate version available. So at this point I doubt there will be much to see happening (unless the situation in the territories change) other than Mr Prcc continuing to edit war. I have been in retirement for quite some time so am asking what you believe could or should be done next to address the situation. I believe there is clear consensus on VI based on the number of different people who have reverted to VI being fully legal in the Same Sex Unions template, and I believe one person is clearly refusing to accept the clear consensus, to the point of being a disruptive editor at this point. Njsustain (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually figured out how to edit the file. It now has all dark blue except for AS and MP, which are both pink. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to upload it to the appropriate place in wikimedia commons. I made alternate changes to the map's key instead. Njsustain (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Cuban Thaw[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for[edit]

voting against deleting Death of Sandra Bland. Also, I suppose you and others were right about my nomination to put it into "news." I'd like to get more involved in that project if I have time, it seems cool.

Re: your links to these edits in the first iteration of the mediation, I doubt Andrevan was making an allegation; I think he was rather trying to demonstrate the difference between productive versus unproductive discussion. He stated, "were I serious, that would be casting aspersions - not describing what you actually did, which is what I did above." Furthermore, all this came at the end of behavior that was very trying, and well explains his frustration.

Andrevan seemed to think you were doing good work in the mediation. And as a number of people pointed out, he certainly was not "on one side -" for instance he deleted my text proposals as excessive and beyond his requested schema for productive mediation. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Flora MacDonald (politician)[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 17:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN – Les Munro[edit]

Clarification: My opposition to this nom was not based on my "personal opinion of the man or woman who died," as you wrote. My opposition was based on the insignificance of the "Dam Busters" attacks regarding the course, duration or outcome of the war – despite the significant casualties inflicted on the ground.

I have no opinion regarding Mr. Munro (whom I'd never heard of before), and I don't question the dedication or courage of the airmen who participated in the attacks. Nor do I harbor any sympathy whatever for the Nazi cause in WWII. Sca (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Decision needed on mediation[edit]

Last week I asked a question about closing the mediation here. Apparently my attempt to ping participants didn't work. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but on the Federal subjects of Russia page this file File:Russian Regions-EN.svg which is a map of Russian regions has not been updated to show the Crimea, I want to know if you can modify it to show that Crimea is now a part of Russia. If yes thank you very much. Signed 79.50.176.220 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Árpád Göncz[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Are you also proudly Portlandian? Face-grin.svg Sca (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: As a matter of fact, I am! -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
We're well aware of Portlandia over here, being as it is diametrically opposed to the predominant cultural ethos in Id-duh-ho. Confused.png Sca (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Thornton (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) 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Azawad attack[edit]

We edited the original conflict together, just a heads up to check this article outLihaas (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Joseph Engelberger[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions/Syrian Civil War notification[edit]

Re: [1] I know you are familiar with the sanctions, but it has to be logged here to be effective, hence the notice. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings![edit]

News battles in Yemen[edit]

Hello. Could you create the pages of the last battles in the north, Marib and the last in Aden between loyalists and jihadists ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Jim Colver[edit]

I would like to know why you edited Jim Colver's page. I updated his page with information backed up by legitimate sources. --Christinaoverturf 15:57, 13 January 2016‎

@Christinaoverturf: Welcome to Wikipedia. The reason I reverted you is because you also 1) deleted information that was backed up by legitimate sources, although it may not have flattered Mr. Colver, and 2) introduced material that you appear to have gotten from primary sources (such as Mr. Colver) rather than from reliable secondary sources. Even if you know something to be true, you can't just add it to Wikipedia without a proper citation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats For You[edit]

File:SuperiorContentReviewScribe.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Zahid-Zadran (talkcontribs) 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Yemeni Crisis[edit]

Hi New article have been created could you update it ? Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

US-Cuba Thaw[edit]

Hi Kudzu, I'm working with the Wikimedia Blog on a post about the US-Cuba Thaw article on Wikipedia. I noticed that you had contributed heavily to it and several similar articles in international relations, so I'd like to pick your brain and quote you for the post. A few questions: is it interesting to be following current events and then writing history for something enduring? What is your experience with international relations articles on Wikipedia—is it difficult to keep them updated? Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for your note. I tend to follow current events pretty closely, and international relations are a particular interest of mine. Wikipedia is interesting when it comes to topics like this, because when editors like me are writing up current events for the website, we do so both (from my standpoint) to inform readers about what is happening, using the best, most reliable, and most up-to-date information we can, and with an eye toward the future. I don't know if anything substantial will come from the Cuban Thaw, and this period of rapprochement could end up turning sour, but there's no question it is history in the making.
As for your question about whether it's difficult to keep them updated...it depends, and I think the three biggest factors tend to be: 1) How quickly events are developing. In the case of the Cuban Thaw, there have been a few milestone moments spread out over the course of more than a year now, so it hasn't been too hard to keep track of. That's not always true, though. I remember during the early days of the Arab Spring, events were unfolding very, very quickly, and situations would change rapidly. Which brings me to 2) the availability of reliable sources. For the Cuban Thaw, because the world's largest economy (and Anglophone country, helpful to us here on English-language Wikipedia) is involved, there is widespread coverage by free media. However, the Cuban media is tightly controlled and censored by the state, so finding reliable sources to report events from the Cuban perspective is difficult. In general, though, keeping tabs on something like the Cuban Thaw is a lot easier than monitoring the state of, say, foreign relations in East Africa, which doesn't get a lot of attention from the international media and where the reports that emerge are often hazy or contradictory. That's just one example, but I remember doing day-to-day updates on the civil war in Libya five years ago and there was all kinds of false information flying around. One thing we always have to keep in mind on Wikipedia is that we're not on a press deadline. We have the luxury of being able to wait and be cautious and make sure we get it right...though we also have the competing luxury of being able to edit, change, and update our work as events develop or new information emerges. There's a balance there somewhere, and it's one that I and many other editors have spent plenty of time debating. Which leads me to 3) editor interest. This is also a matter of balance, because if there's a topic about which very few editors are interested, pages can go for a long, long time without being updated, and obsolete information can linger for years. I see this all the time in obscure articles that say things like "as of January 2013, X was Y" or something like that. But if there's a topic that a lot of editors are interested in, odds are good that it's controversial, and that can lead to clashes between different "factions" that can turn into edit wars, sometimes require administrator intervention, sometimes mediation, etc. The Cuban Thaw articles haven't attracted as much of that as some that I've been involved with -- the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Syrian Civil War both spring instantly to mind -- but that's one of the most difficult parts of being a Wikipedian who edits on current events and international relations. People don't always see eye to eye, and I think a lot of editors really put a lot of stock in the idea that history is written by the victors, or that those who write history wield great power.
Just like the world it details, Wikipedia is constantly changing and evolving. I think a lot of us feel like we are, in a small way, writing an early draft of history when we're updating Wikipedia with information on current events. But it's important also to keep in mind that our "early draft" will be subject to indefinite revisions. We can only be certain that we're writing a history for the present time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kudzu. Will ping you when this is published. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in pinging you—I completely forgot. The article has been published. Thank you very much! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Muhammad Ali[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 4 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Muhammad Ali, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Nakon 05:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

New Yemeni Civil War article[edit]

Hi there,

I just found out you are the creator of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen article and wanted to let you know about my article, in case you haven't seen it. It's the Human rights violations during the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present) one. I would really appreciate you letting me know if you think there are other events I should include.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmWinn (talkcontribs) 10:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Roster navboxes[edit]

When you update a roster template, such as {{Washington Nationals roster}}, please don't forget to update the navbox, in this case {{Washington Nationals roster navbox}}. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Ross (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) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FSA-grab.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FSA-grab.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Reynaldo[edit]

What are you doing here? I am putting the info in the correct location. You screwed up and placed info that you copy/pasted from the Nationals minor league page. I have no idea why you did not put the info directly at the Reynaldo López location. All of the edit history as already located at that location.--Yankees10 03:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a histmerge request should be filed, in that case. I took the couple grafs or so that were on the minor leaguers page and expanded them considerably with new/updated content. The content of that page should not be cut-and-pasted into a redirect -- that's not the proper procedure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I will request that [2] to [3]be merged in if you'd like. I'm not sure what you are saying with the second part because this most certainly is the proper procedure for minor league players--Yankees10 03:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be acceptable. That being said, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources to support the "Reynaldo López" style. Virtually every baseball database, news story, etc. forgoes the accent mark over the "o". What is your basis for preferring "Reynaldo López"? As for the procedure, I was referring to cut-and-paste moves, which aren't allowed per WP:CUTPASTE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
English sources hardly ever have accents. Here's a spanish language source with the accent.--Yankees10 04:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests[edit]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archie Bradley (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) 09:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (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) 09:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clint Robinson (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) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hatcher Pass, Alaska nominated at RFD[edit]

Hatcher Pass, Alaska listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hatcher Pass, Alaska. Since you had some involvement with the Hatcher Pass, Alaska redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Kudzu1. 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)

Kyle McGowin[edit]

Please self-revert that edit. People get their own page if they meet the general notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lots of minor leaguers meet that, like Mickey Moniak and Nick Senzel. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:'Adan Governorate listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:'Adan Governorate. Since you had some involvement with the Category:'Adan Governorate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GXXF TC 19:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinckney consensus[edit]

Would you mind just following up on my talkpage comment with a pointer to where to find consensus to use "assassination"? Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)