- 1 I vote to restore not editing other users talk page words on Wikipedia talk pages
- 2 Your contributions on
- 3 Holiday
- 4 Cheers
- 5 You might have a look here
- 6 Nomination of Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh) for deletion
- 7 RFAR declined
- 8 Invitation to Participate
- 9 Reference on Los Angeles, California
- 10 Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
- 11 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 12 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 13 TWL HighBeam check-in
I vote to restore not editing other users talk page words on Wikipedia talk pages
Apparently as of April 26, 2015 users can now edit other users comments on talk pages, even things like AfDs, also users can ban other wikipedians from their talk page. I am against this but if these are the rules then like above, I will follow wikipedia policy, because as everyone here knows and understands wikipedia policy applies to everyone equally.
Your contributions on
Understand things are going tough? Deletion of Talk pages suggesting? Take care, we understand how it can be (e.g., see []). Ptience, and perseverance. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Vellem omnia tanti conferre possem. Spes in virtute, amicus. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You might have a look here
Nomination of Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh) 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/Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh) 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. Zackmann08 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to Participate
Reference on Los Angeles, California
This may seem a bit odd... but do you know why you cited an ESPN media bio as a reference for air pollution in Los Angeles? It was over two years ago, so not that important, but I'm just curious. Conifer (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- That seems like a very fair question, for an answer in October 2017, see you then! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 06:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)