Jump to content

User talk:Regression Tester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to FFmpeg, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

  • Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: FFmpeg was changed by Regression Tester (u) (t) deleting 28350 characters on 2010-03-04T15:40:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting spam

[edit]

Hello, and thanks for your anti-spamming activities. Wikipedia really needs this. I would also recommend adding a warning to the users' page each time you revert their spam or vandalism, using the spam or vandalism templates. It is quite useful, especially with anonymous IP addresses, because, as the Administrator intervention against vandalism page says, a user must recieve a sufficient number or recent (i.e. in the last couple of days or so) warnings before they can get blocked. Therefore, each time someone adds a spam to Wikipedia and does not recieve a warning (or the warnings are not recent—like one warning from November 2009 followed by another warning in March 2010), it gives them a free ticket to add yet another piece of spam. So a spam1 template should be followed by a stronger spam2 warning, followed by spam3, and finally spam4, the last warning. Then, if it doesn't help, the user should be reported and blocked from editing. I guess our favourite spammer Shibohui will be blocked pretty soon...—J. M. (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the templates, I did not really know how to search them! Do you think we can find a solution for AVS Video* vs license violations (by either deleting the articles, esp. the really unneeded Editor one, or by adding information about their nice business model)? --Regression Tester (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AVS Video Editor deletion discussion seems to be temporarily halted, and the Delete vs. Keep ratio in the comments does not suggest any conclusion... We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I nominated Emicsoft DVD Ripper, ImTOO DVD Ripper and Aimersoft DVD Ripper for speedy deletion. The first two got deleted right away, the Aimersoft status was changed to proposed deletion. And AVS Video Converter is basically the same product as those three (in fact, I believe all those shareware "video converters" are made by the same person, who just changes the logo and advertizes them under million different names, which increases the spamming potential dramatically—you can see for example the Tools section that the spammers keep adding to various articles; it's just always a list of the same products, it's obvious that this is a spammers' cartel, not separate, unrelated products). So I can't see a reason why AVS Video Converter could not be deleted, too. Abdulmiller (who, BTW, is a spammer, too, as you can see from his history) removed the deletion template so it should not be added again. But it can—and I believe it should—be added as an AfD. For the Editor, I'm afraid it would be too difficult to find information about their business model from reliable sources. Deleting the article makes more sense in my opinion.—J. M. (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% share your opinion about AVS Editor, FYI, apart from AVS, there is a second big producer of this kind of software called Xilisoft. Could you look at this edit, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matroska&curid=225160&diff=350149879&oldid=350059351 I can't comment because I am personally too involved. --Regression Tester (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Xilisoft is probably the most famous spammer in the multimedia software area, they have been spamming the whole internet for the last couple of years... Wikipedia has this spam blacklist, which should be used for reporting exactly these kinds of "companies", brand names or product names. For example, when you see that someone like Iphonefans2009 keeps advertising iFunia products in every article they can find (and repeatedly, even when it gets deleted), you can also suggest iFunia to be added to the blacklist. Just make sure you collect enough evidence (i.e. give links to edits etc.) It's a good thing, because when Iphonefans2009 get blocked, they will just keep advertising iFunia under a new identity. That's exactly what spammers are doing all the time.
For the Mezzmo edit... I don't know. It seems to support Matroska, so it can be mentioned in the list. On the other hand, while having its own Wikipedia article is not required and adding red links to non-existing articles was OK when Wikipedia was younger (to encourage writing those new articles), it is now recommended to write the article first. That is, if the product does not have its article yet, it may not be notable enough to list it. But it is not a rule, just a recommendation. So it may or may not be seen as spam.—J. M. (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinezale You're kidding right? the same link withhttp://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVS_Video_Editor "?Type=sct=inc&ct=Wiki&cid=165". I respect your "guidelines for external links", I just restore it to the original author website link. you can check the history of this article. I don't add the excess link. My link actually pointed to some unique content. If my link "violated" terms, show me that you have some integrity and remove those others as well. — Martinezale (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume that wikipedians are stupid. Such primitive tricks do not work here.—J. M. (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But our company is the author of this article, like thathttp://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVS_Video_Editor, even though we are partners of the avs4you. We don't think about to cheat anyone, And we have read [the external links guideline] and [spam guideline]carefully. I just put the appropriate link in it. I know you want to delete the article all the time, if everyone think that it is AD article, you can delete it. but valuable article is needed on wikipedia. I think wikipedia's value is an encyclopedia. And it is fair and square. We hard to write the article and find the references or sources for it. Martinezale (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Companies do not own articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to put reglinks to monitor anything or gain any other advantage. Please stop spamming the article with reglinks, or you will be blocked from editing. Please note that persistent spamming can also lead to blacklisting the website.—J. M. (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Hartheim

[edit]

I agree that the article is a mess. My previous comment still applies. "It's very hard to do anything about someone whose work is obviously well-intentioned and whose edits are a mixed bag. Really all one can do is roll back the bad edits & clean up any detritus left in his wake. One of the disadvantages of how Wikipedia is set up." - Jmabel | Talk 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know. May I suggest you warn the spammers you revert and report them to WP:AIV- I've just blocked one of them and deleted their userpage. If you use any web browser other than Explorer, you should be able to use Twinkle which can help you warn vandals/spammers and revert multiple edits by different people. Keep up the good work HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and thank you for the useful link-list! --Regression Tester (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Needs To Go

[edit]

Regression Tester, I'm confused. You state that you like my edits, but remove them. As a professional video editor AND leader of a software testing team, I'm qualified to state unequivocally that the software violates Windows standards as well as video editing norms, and every single statement I made in that edit was factual. I can walk you through them, if you'll download a copy of AVS video editor and skype me at RipplingBeast. Those goofballs have been permitted to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform, and if left as is, the article is blatantly false by omission. Further, "intended for beginning video editors" is pure opinion and the entire article cites no external PUBLISHED source. Also, IIRC, there should be NO article on Wikipedia which does not reference published (as in, paper) sources, and AVS Media has made a fetish out of staying hidden and out of the print media.

So, what's going on, here? Do you work for AVS? Do you care about the objectivity of Wikipedia articles? Do you care about their factual content? Everything you deleted was stone cold fact, even the adjectives like "frustrating." What's going on? RipplingBeast (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL--Regression Tester (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video players

[edit]

You are welcome, of course. Please help watch the page so they do not creep back. Promotional use of Wikipedia is systemic. Miami33139 (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nvidia PureVideo. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. What are you doing?!!?? Stop edit warring please! I would have blocked you but am leaving this note instead. If you break the WP:3RR once again, you will be blocked. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message! Could you explain to me how the (non-constructive) last edit of 124.13.114.184 on Nvidia PureVideo can be reverted now? For example, I find it not very useful for an interested reader to enumerate all Geforce series of the last years when since the very first PureVideo release, all Geforce series supported it. Additionally, while PureVideo originally was Windows-only, it is now available on several operating systems. MVC, otoh, is only available on Windows currently, because VDPAU (and its counterpart on OS X) is missing the necessary API. In the Feature Sets section, several terms are wiki-linked several times, which is not desirable, iiuc. Thank you for you help! --Regression Tester (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

[edit]

Redirect from Elecard Group to Elecard

[edit]

Hi, why do you keep deleting the redirect tag that redirects from Elecard Group to Elecard, this is basically one and the same company and everybody knows that company as Elecard, not as Elecard Group. The info is basically identical, and there is no point in keeping two identical pages up to date. So would you please let this page redirect to Elecard? Vicadin (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, simply adding a redirect on top of an existing page is vandalism (as is deleting a page's content without discussion on the Discussion page). And are you sure you are sufficiently independent from Elecard to work so hard on an article about it?--Regression Tester (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the process of putting a redirect tag on top of a page? What do I need to do for you guys to approve of it? I don't think it really matters whether I am independent from Elecard, which I am, as long as the article I'm trying to rewrite is unbiased and encyclopedic.Vicadin (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that adding a redirect on top of an existing page is vandalism, but why don't you start a discussion on the relevant discussion pages to merge (and if you are independent, please start with fixing the Awards section of the page, it is highly misleading iirc)?--Regression Tester (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where do I find that discussion page where I can propose a merger of the wiki articles in question? as far as the Awards section of the page, I checked the reference links and they seem to be in accord with the content of the section. Am I missing something? Thanks.Vicadin (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the talk pages: talk:Elecard and talk:Elecard_Group. compression.ru is currently unreachable, but the overall rank for the sixth shootout and the name of the winners for the following year are definitely missing.--Regression Tester (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when you add the overall rank for 2010, don't forget to mention it is the last place among H264 encoders.--Regression Tester (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't think about that. I'll try to rewrite that passage as soon as I have some free time, unless someone else does it first :) Anyways, I proposed the two articles for a merger. We'll see how it goes. Thanks again!Vicadin (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elecard and Elecard Group Merger

[edit]

Hi again. As you might have seen in the Elecard page discussion tab, I have proposed the two pages for a merger. DMacks agreed that they should be merged. Is it okay to put a redirect tag here on Elecard Group page or I should do it in a different way? Thanks. Vicadin (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am sorry if I made a wrong impression: I am definitely no expert in merging etc. and therefore, I don't know how this can be done "correctly".--Regression Tester (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geh zur hölle, KRAUT

[edit]

KRAUT, Geh zur hölle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.59.200 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to tell you, but I am not German;-)--Regression Tester (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KMPlayer

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "K-Multimedia Player". Thank you. --SF007 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that KMPlayer is non-notable and that it has clearly violated copyright on multiple occasions. I think the full depth of it should be included in the article, however. Original Research does not seem to apply to the sentence I have added. The only reason KMPlayer can use the GPL and LGPL code in their product is by following those licenses. And the authority on how to properly follow those licenses is the very lawyers and techies who wrote the licenses as well as the FAQ guidelines for those licenses, the FSF. 98.14.114.27 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.m2ts

[edit]

Hello!

I you actually looking up in applications, those using lower case chars everywhere. This RFC reference is incorrect in that detail.

Please look up the other formats descriptions on Wikipedia .mkv .mov .mp4 or .mp3, all of them in lc, for a reason.

Regards Csendesmark (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really sure that "look up applications, the RFC is incorrect" is a good argumentation? (I don't know.) If yes, please add your reasoning to the talk page of .m2ts, I consider it (very much) non-obvious.--Regression Tester (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Internet media type Csendesmark (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I just did and I see nothing there that supports your argumentation. Please understand that I am not saying you are wrong, just that the only source currently available contradicts you.--Regression Tester (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'll edit out. nobody pays me to look after it... Csendesmark (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and Rollback

[edit]

Hi. I noticed you've used rollback at Comparison of screencasting software quite a few times, to revert the good-faith addition of content. Please only use WP:ROLLBACK for vandalism, per that page's instructions (i.e. "editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed"). Good-faith edits that are problematic should be fixed or reverted with a different method, eg using the "Undo" link, so that an explanatory edit summary can be added. Much thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to an example? I am quite sure that I only use rollback for non-constructive commits. Thank you --Regression Tester (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I somehow missed the link: The change in question was advertising of a non-notable software product, that is the whole reason rollback is good for imo. If the editor were not an ip but a registered user, I would have left him a note on the talk page.--Regression Tester (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-constructive ≠ vandalism
Very very different.
Eg. [1], [2], [3], etc
Yes, it's more laborious and somewhat tedious, but we have to assume edits like these are made in goodfaith, and treat them as such. Otherwise newbies never become regulars, and the stereotype of Wikipedia-editors being hostile to newcomers gets entrenched.
Ideally, our edit summaries reverting the addition of entries such as this, would link to WP:LISTN and WP:LSC.
Thanks :) –Quiddity (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three changes you link look like good-faith to me (not even remotely).--Regression Tester (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it WP:Vandalism, or is it WP:NOT VANDALISM (See 1st and 3rd subsections)? Pure vandalism is the ONLY thing rollback is to be used for. Everything else needs/deserves an explanatory edit summary. –Quiddity (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your original criticism was that I used rollback to revert good-faith edits, I just want to explain that the edits you pointed out do not look like good-faith edits to me.--Regression Tester (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the three edits you pointed out was Spam external linking which is mentioned under Vandalism.--Regression Tester (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

[edit]

SimpleScreenRecorder is a very new article. I added a reference to it from a Comparison of screencast wikipage, and I was wondering if you can tell me what wikipedia guideline I can use to look into about new articles being reference-able.. Thanks Swestlake (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely not an expert for new articles (on the contrary) but I think it is safe to say that one of the absolute minimal requirements for every article is that its name is correct (which would have avoided the red link in the long list that made me think there is no such article).--Regression Tester (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nm, fixed typoed article title 'recoder' to 'recorder' somewhere.. I would now be able to work with this.. my mistake..
Swestlake (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FFmpeg and Libavcodec

[edit]

Hi.

I am in a hurry, so sorry for the curtness of the message. Anyway, please check the FFmpeg download page because unlike what you said, it seems there are binaries available for download.

In addition, Template:Infobox software specifically says "avoid specifying vague phrases such as Cross-platform (or its redirect, Multi-platform)". I am surprised no one has ever registered an objection.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
About your first point: See [4]. If you have trouble spotting it, press CTRL+F and search the following sentences:
  • "FFmpeg Windows Builds are available at Zeranoe FFmpeg Builds"
  • "FFmpeg static builds for Mac OS X Intel 64bit are available at FFmpeg Static Builds by tessus"
  • "FFmpeg Debian packages for Oldstable, Stable, Testing, Unstable (amd64, i386, powerpc, sparc, ia64, armel, mips, mipsel) are available at deb-multimedia."
Just now, I downloaded ffmpeg-20130626-git-e59fb3f-win64-static.7z and from what I see, it is a fully compiled app.
As for your second point, I never said "it is not cross-platform"; indeed it is. Only we don't (and mustn't) write "cross-platform" because it communicates near zero information. (It just says the app is designed for multiple platforms, but which?). What I wrote, however, ("Available for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux but may be compiled for any other OS") does not contradict cross-platform; it just gives a little bit more info.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All links you found are binaries not provided by FFmpeg (because the FFmpeg project only provides source code), the are provided by different people, from a quick look, none of them contributes (directly) to FFmpeg, they all just compile binaries (and asked on the developer mailing list that their pages get linked from the download page). Concerning not contradicting: I am not a native speaker, but I have troubles to imagine a stronger contradiction (except not cross-platform): The first thing FFmpeg mentions on its homepage is that it is cross-platform (and we seem to agree it is) and you mention four operating systems and one hardware platform and you still claim that does not contradict?--Regression Tester (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
As for the first, the fact that FFmpeg.org does not host them does not automatically cause the ownership to be severed. Indeed, most open-source projects host their binaries and source code outside their domain, on LaunchPad, Source Forge, Google Code, CodePlex, because outsourcing is beneficial. (Firefox is the only exception I know of.) In addition, there are no "other people" in open source development; open-source software are developed by "other people". And let's not forget: FFmpeg.org links to those sources. As long they are faithful compilations of the source code, they are official.
Now, as for the second, what are you talking about? Cross-platform means "available for more than one platform" and the fact that binaries are available for more than one platform supports it. (Although "cross-platform" is a vague term for which there is no 100% accurate definition; hence its ban of use.) So, I am at a loss about your stance. Perhaps you should tell me what was your inferences.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other projects use LaunchPad, Source Forge, Google Code, CodePlex where they maintain their binary distributions themselves (project members upload binaries to servers administrated by others). No FFmpeg developer offers binaries, independent people have requested that their binary distributions get added to the FFmpeg download page. (Yes, they do now support FFmpeg and contribute in a way but they do neither maintain nor develop FFmpeg.) Sorry, but I wonder why it is so difficult to understand that FFmpeg does a few things different than other projects (including not distributing binaries).
Imo, cross-platform should not mean more than one platform (I suspect that is also the reason for warning on the Template page) but it means that the software is not limited to some list of hardware and operating systems but that it tries to support as many toolchains as possible (in the case of FFmpeg including some that can safely be called useless nowadays and that are not supported by most open-source projects).--Regression Tester (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
In regards to officialness, I do not know why you insist on separating compilers and builders from coders. Both are part of the software development processes. Someone writes codes, someone builds, the official website lists both: It seems pretty much official. Although we can always request a WP:RFC. In the meantime, the phrase "Available for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux" does not mention "official". So, why do you still disagree?
As for your definition of "cross-platform", well, if I was surprised as to why its use was banned, I no longer am: Your definition is different. But still that leaves a lot of space for a compromise. Do you not agree with "but may be compiled for any other OS"? After all, it is pretty much what you said and we can change it till we agree.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Regression Tester. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Regression Tester. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Regression Tester. 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]

300m

[edit]

Hello. You recent edit is not correct because Michael Norman and Fred Kerley have not run under 31s for the 300. http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_300ok.htm Ear-phone (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and sorry.--Regression Tester (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Regression_Tester&oldid=1124473738"