User talk:Rydra Wong

Talk page policy:

If you leave me a message, I will reply on this page.
If I have left you a message, I will be watching your user talk page, I would prefer that you reply there.

Hello, Rydra Wong, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets in the Yellow Springs, Ohio area

A great place to start is by creating articles for area townships (Clark and Greene Counties, maybe?), making sure that each township article includes links to these hamlets. Help for this is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio townships. Good luck! -- SwissCelt 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Of Glass

Are you sure "Of" is supposed to be capitalized? My Google search for "sea of glass" and "longyear" turned up mostly results with a lowercase "o". --Maxamegalon2000 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The St. Martin's Press first edition (ISBN 0-312-00780-9) I own has it titled as "SEA OF GLASS" on the copyright page. An ISBN search [1]of amazon.com produces the appropriate cover typeface (consistent with the spine and copyright page) but gives "Sea of Glass" in their description. A search of abebooks.com [2] for the same ISBN produces "SEA OF GLASS", "Sea of Glass" and occasionally "Sea Of Glass". Given the case variations found and the Wikipedia capitalization conventions for books [3], I opted to title the stub "Sea Of Glass" as a compromise. I'm not absolutely sure that my compromise is the most appropriate and I'm open to suggestions. -- Rydra Wong 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would think one of them has to be the correct one. But as long as you've got a rationale behind it, I certainly don't mind and it's probably not that big of a deal. I just noticed you'd created the two seperate articles, and I redirected to what I assumed was the correct title. I would have gone with the lowercase "o", but if there's some discrepancy maybe it could go either way. If it should be lowercase, I imagine others will notice it when they expand the article anyway. Thanks for the reply. --Maxamegalon2000 15:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Did you check the IBGE website? I don't think you have it clearly uses Mulatto as a racial description and not Multiracial. Shakam 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have now checked both the IBGE website and the link to the pertinent area of the IBGE site from the Brazil article. I would suggest, however, that the article "Mulatto" not be linked to until it has been substantially refurbished. -- Rydra Wong 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, someone might not know what a mulatto is, and the mulatto article has a Brazilian section I believe. Shakam 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the Mulatto article is very poorly written; it's filled with original research, bias and obvious misinformation. While it makes sense to use the terminology of the IBGE when referencing that site in the Brazil article; linking to a confusing and poorly written article detracts unnecessarily from the quality of the Brazil article. Perhaps tightening and tidying the Mulatto article prior to linking would be a good idea. -- Rydra Wong 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still gives the basic definition of a mulatto; however, I agree that it is poorly written. I've done little work to it. When I first saw it, I just worked with what was there (it was very poorly written) by adding a few citations and fixing sentences for clarity. It is much better than it was, but with such limited information on the internet of mulattoes, work is slowly progressing. Shakam 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Springs sock puppet

I noticed that you have been engaged in editing Yellow Springs, Ohio with user:Omnivore Oprah and user:CubanBaseball. Those sock puppet accounts have now been blocked. If you're interested you may comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CantStandYa blocked. In the future, if you should see another editor showing a similar pattern of edits it would be helpful if you could inform me or another admin. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chrysalids

Hi, just to say great work on The Chrysalids, it was a complete mess when I found it and though I had a go at improving it slightly, I'm overjoyed a more committed editor found the article and made it what it now is, an article fitting of what this great and classic book deserves. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Jdcooper 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words. While the article is still a work in progress, it's nice to receive a pat on the back. Thanks also for your assistance in editing and swatting the occasional pest. -- Rydra Wong 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislaw Lem's atheism

Stanislaw Lem was an agnostic, not atheist.

Please see the article on Stanislaw Lem and follow the link to the interview[4] by Peter Engel wherein Lem explicitly states that he is an atheist. -- Rydra Wong 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singular or Plural

I am sure that somewhere in the millions of pages here is the answer to this question already, but I don't know where and as I consider you as my mentor, I will ask you: I wrote an article on Doorstep Greens, a project in England to create lots of public open spaces with that generic name. I don't know if it should best be entitled thus or Doorstep Green, like the comparable Millennium Green article and I don't know how to change the title once one has created it, if it is. What do you think? Also, how does one make the little verticle line used in some Wiki editing? I can't find such a thing on my keyboardIceDragon64 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly no authority on this sort of thing but I would think that the plural "Doorstep Greens" would be most appropriate; much as the generic plural Commons is to the noteworthy and singular Greenham Common. I'm not sure which vertical line you mean other than what may already be seen in your signature above in editing mode; the shifted backslash key "|" on my keyboard. Changing an article's title requires renaming the page. I hope I was helpful. Good luck and happy editing. -- Rydra Wong 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varient/variant Spellings

I was looking for the article on fulgarites today and there wasn't one. I checked the spelling in one of my text books, then wrote a stub. I was about to Save when I checked something a search engine, only to find that it is correctly spelt fulgurite (I checked this in Chambers Dictionary!)

Is there some way to alert or note varient spellings? If there was a "did you mean..." device and I could operate it, I would write one for fulgarite and fulgerite, both of which are common on the internet.IceDragon64 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion for no reason

Hi

You deleted these paragraphs from the 12 monkeys page:

Screenwriters David and Janet Peoples were intrigued with the possibilities that arose from depicting time travellers as prophets. In a rare interview Janet said "How would we react to people who showed up and said 'Oh I've just popped up from the future' and in turn how would that person deal with our reaction...We were very interested in asking questions like 'Is this man mad? And how about the prophets of the past, were they mad? Were they true prophets? Were they coming from another time? What are all the different possibilities?'" ^[1] Consequently in the film, prophesy is a key theme. In Katherine Railly's lecture "Madness and Apocalyptic Visions", we are told about the Cassandra Complex where Cassandra was "condemned to know the future but to be disbelieved when she foretold it". Railly also speaks of several prophets warning of an apocalypse who are time travellers sent to the wrong era (As proof, we see from a photograph that one of the prophets is Jose in 1917). Two particular examples are quoted below.

"According to the accounts of local officials at that time, this gentleman, judged to be about forty years of age, appeared suddenly in the village of Wyle near Stonehenge in the West of England in April of 1162. Using unfamiliar words and speaking in a strange accent, the man made dire prognostications about a pestilence which he predicted would wipe out humanity in approximately 8OO years."

"During such an attack in the French trenches in October, 1917, we have an account of this soldier... who, during an assault, was wounded by shrapnel and hospitalized behind the lines where Doctors discovered he had lost all comprehension of French but spoke English fluently, albeit in a regional dialect they didn't recognize. The man, although physically unaffectedby the gas, was hysterical. He claimed he had come from the future, that he was looking for a pure germ that would ultimately wipe mankind off the face of the earth in the year... 1996!"

In addition, when Cole returns to the future having been sent to the wrong year, he hears a voice telling him to be thankful he didnt get sent to ancient Egypt - the implication being that a time traveller warning of an impending apocalype had been sent there.

Since its release in 1996, many eagle-eyed fans have noted prophetic symbolism in the film^[2]^[3]. In particular, the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) seems to fit the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself. Furthermore the letters "Chris" are the only visible letters on Cole's t-shirt in one scene in the film^[4]. While there is no exhaustive list of symbolism in the film, the idea of depicting time travellers as prophets has been confirmed by the screen writers^[5].

As this is not Original Research and contains actual quotes from the screenwriters themselves, why was it deleted in its entirety. The only section I am having a mediation cabal with is with regards to a part of the final paragraph - Why did the whole lot go?Breed3011 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you added to the "Themes" section is a mixture of original research and undistilled supporting evidence for James Cole as a Christ figure. If you read the existing section closely and compare it with your addition I'm certain you'll understand what I mean. Subsequent to your question, I read the commentary by Indecine on the article's talk page and he appears to have already made a number of similar points. At this point the issue has been made moot by your agreement to stand by the decision of the mediation cabal. -- Rydra Wong 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen of the Galaxy

I have to go with CatherS on this one. Baslim made the final bid and the text states that he "had to be subsidized again by the Syndonian" to pay for the tax on the sale. It doesn't matter where the money came from, Baslim bought himself a slave. Clarityfiend 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point Clarityfiend. I'm going to reedit that portion and see if we can't come up with something agreeable to all. -- Rydra Wong 02:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have ever been consulted about a rewrite, which is pretty cool. I agree that the "flavor" of the article would be enhanced by some sort of acknowledgment of "the derisive flavor of the Syndonian's assistance," but I've no idea how to phrase it succinctly. CatherS 08:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victim disarmament

Rydra, I was thinking of putting this article up for deletion. What do you think? It's just something out of somebody's book. I don't think it has much currency. It probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griot, I respectfully disagree. A google search of the term produces 24,000 non-wikipedia hits. This speaks positively to notability and the currency of the concept in the ongoing debate on the use and abuse of firearms. I do not favor putting the article up for deletion. -- Rydra Wong 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed to discover that this Page has been redirected to something different- effectively deleting it. Despite being strongly anti-gun myself I agreed with your POV that Victim Disarmament is a recognised concept when I saw it here. As far as I am concerned, if people are likely to look it up on Wikipedia, they should find the answers.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two different "Dowie Dens" articles

Thanks for the message. Sadly the subject of folk songs is riddled with multiple versions of the same song with slightly different titles, and I'm sorry I have added to this by creating another version of the Dowie Dens. I somehow missed the probable existence of the rather obvious title when I was looking through the list of Child Ballads for redlinks. I agree we should incorporate the material in a single article and have no strong views on which title we take as the main one. I think all other variants that we can think of should be redirects (not deletes), to discourage others from making the same mistake as me. My version was constructed using the Traditional Song Boilerplate that has been proposed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music project. I would be quite keen to keep that structure or, if not, to feed back to that project any proposed improvements to that structure. I'm happy to do some work on the merging of the articles but may not have time for a few days. Cheers! Bluewave 07:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at merging the two articles. My merged version is currently residing at The Dowie Dens o Yarrow. I'd welcome your views on whether this version captures everything important from the other article. I have moved the main lyrics section over to Wikisource (with a link), which seems to be the current policy on song lyrics. If you're agreable, I suggest the way forward will be to copy the text across to the 'of' article and to make the 'o' article into a redirect. What do you think? Bluewave 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category Use

I decided to come to you again as a 'familiar face'. I went to catagorise a chemical into Household Chemicals and I realise that there seem to be two different definitions of what a Household Chemical is: The category includes any chemical ingredient that you might find in the household such as Sodium Laureth Sulphate (in toothpaste) so I put my Hydrated Silica there. However, I didn't feel comfortatable with this, and looked on the Household Chemicals page itself, which has a much more logical definition- chemicals you use in the house AS THEY ARE- such as White Spirit. I put a note to this effect in the discussion page , but I would rather find someone who can help decide this before it piles up more and more 'wrong' links. Who do I talk to or how do I go about this?

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Mach Bell

The standard notable natives section isn't affected by the person's current residence: both current and former residents may be listed there. Beloit, Kansas, for example, includes Waldo McBurney, who hasn't lived in the city for several decades. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babel 21

Cool username. Sam Delany 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Last Mimzy

No problem; the same editor added similarly unnecessary detail to Hancock (film), so I followed the contributions. I wish people would have the mindset of reducing the word count in these sections, not increasing it! :) Anyway, happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Marburg external link from Twelve Monkeys

I've reverted your addition of Marburg as an external link to Twelve Monkeys. As another editor has noted previously, External Links need to be DIRECTLY related to the subject of the article. Neither Marburg, not any other filovirus is mentioned in the film. The causative agent is left to the imagination. As I hope you're aware, Marburg is not even a particularly good fit as human to human transmission requires contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected individual and the fictional virus in Twelve Monkeys is one that spreads through airborne transmission. This is not a suggestion to link to a more likely airborne pathogen such as F. tularensis as wikipedia still requires direct relation to the subject matter. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rydra. You're right. Yesterday I was seeking information from the late 1970s related to the Berlin airport incident in which a highly virulent form of Marburg virus infected rhesus monkeys were reportedly left in an airport storage area by mistake, and a potentially castastrophic epidemic was serendipitously avoided by failure to ship them out from Berlin to their final destinations. I had hoped to expand upon that link in Twelve Monkeys later, when I find proper references. The link to the fictional film may be conincidental, but I'm wondering if the idea originated with, or was influenced by, the alleged Berlin airport incident. I appreciate your input and interest. Thanks! Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Twelve Monkeys

I'm fully aware that the Army did not release the virus, but at the beginning of the movie, it was thought that they did, and it was them that Cole was sent back in time to investigate. As the article currently stands, the first time the Army is mentioned is when Cole is brought back to the future from 1990, and there the relevance is questionable. I was merely trying to describe who the Army are by adding that to the beginning. Sorry for any confusion. Master Deusoma (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Departures

Regarding this edit, if you are saying that the film "departs significantly" from the novel, you need to back it up. I don't know that Weirding Modules and rain on Arrakis are more significant than the type of changes that would be made in any adaptation of a novel, but you at least need to make an attempt in the article. And keep in mind, anything that looks like an opinion needs a source that somebody reliable said it first. — TAnthony^Talk 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 2009 Tea Party protests. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 2009 Tea Party protests, you will be blocked from editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I neither blanked nor deleted page content as you suggest; I simply edited those items that ran afoul of WP:NPOV. If you're not familiar with Neutral Point of View, I suggest you enlighten yourself. You should also realize that you are already in danger of being blocked for WP:3RR. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page twice. [5][6]. I'm familiar with WP:NPOV. Are you? Obvious vandalism, such as page blanking, does not fall under WP:3RR. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rydra Wong. FYI I have reported JCDenton2052 for the same threats. [7] Arzel (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party

Rydra Wong, You just made a recent revert on Tea Party Protests, much of which is probably fine. However, you undid my recent edit. Did you have a problem with N being included in turnout numbers? Arzel (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch

I saw the IP change "is" to "was the home of Antioch College" at Yellow Springs, but I let it pass intentionally. I thought the idea was that the school is permanently closed...can you explain how I'm wrong? Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood the closure is permanent despite the fact that a consortium of alumni is attempting to purchase the buildings and grounds in attempt to restart it. However, the last word from the Board of Trustees was that it would reopen in 2012. My thinking is that Yellow Springs still is the home of what was the Yellow Springs campus (historically registered buildings, still functioning thousand acre nature preserve, etc) of Antioch University and is home to the Antioch McGregor campus of Antioch University. Perhaps there is a concise way to indicate that while the institution is not currently functioning, a significant chunk of real estate has been mothballed rather than sold to a developer or another academic institution. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reworded it; what do you think of it now? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth W. Royce

I appreciate your efforts to provide sources for the Kenneth W. Royce article. However, be advised that sources like http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Kenneth-W.-Royce that copy the Wikipedia article are not legitimate sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Report

The word conservative is there with citations and consensus discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocky (TV Series)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chocky (TV Series), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Chocky. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a split of material to the article Chocky (TV Series), and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Split sets out, when we split material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Split from Sourcearticle". Then, we note the split as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material split to destination article", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been split remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this split, but I wanted to let you know for future use. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. The leftorium 15:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of a book by Rawles

Rydra: You may recall an AfD discussion last year for James Wesley Rawles. (The result was keep.) Well, now a wiki article on one of his books has been AfDed. Your well-reasoned comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_to_Survive_the_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know_It Trasel (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byron

Can you cite a reliable source that disagrees with DeLorme? Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can likewise provide evidence of errors with Google Maps. Look at the satellite view for Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania here; the satellite hasn't been updated to show the move of the state highway in 2008, as you can see in Street View (Mapquest has it right), while this scene plainly isn't in the rural county park you can see here. Do you know if the Greene County Engineer's Office publishes any online maps that would compare to this one from my county engineer's office? I'd be inclined to go with that over the atlas. And kindly stop the original research: actual knowledge of the area does not trump published sources. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't look at Google Maps: there's no real way to cite it properly, and as I just said, it's prone to errors. Unlike sites such as the GNIS, they don't fix their errors easily — I've several times reported the errors I mentioned above, starting over a year ago, but they've never done anything about it. Moreover, saying "Actual knowledge of the area trumps your atlas" is a blatant example of original research; WP:COS says that even if you're a specialist in the area, you may only cite yourself if your research is published reliably. Finally, you left the citation to the atlas in place but changed the information; consequently, you're making it sound as if the atlas is saying otherwise than it is. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't cite a source, you can't use it; proper citations are required for verifiability. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it just occurred to me to cite USGS maps, but this is maybe even better. Was there once an airplane crash in the vicinity, or are there maps like this for all parts of the country? Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch College

If you really believe that Antioch College will reopen in 2012, then I've got some swampland to sell you. There has been no activity, and no offers. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback on reassessment

Hello, Rydra Wong. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"That argument doesn't wash. If I self identify as an Asian woman can I get together with friends, conjure up an Asian Women's flag and submit it under the Oriental article? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? Remember this is an online encyclopedia striving to contain factual, properly cited articles. It is not myspace.com or someone's personal web page."

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

SHUT UP!!!

You don't wash. All you smartmouth wiki liberals don't give a crap about facts or debate, just pinhead mob mentality.

F#CK your "myspace" and your infantile hypocrisy and strawman baiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.221.190 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete article?

I found this article, which IMO is not Notable and should be deleted. I have no idea how I should go about it, but if in doubt, I come back to you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Howard_(preacher)

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rydra Wong. 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 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rydra Wong. 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]

[1] ttp://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/monkvive.htm

[2] ttp://www.mouratis.org/12m/

[3] ttp://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/twelve_monkeys/

[4] ttp://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Messiah.htm

[5] ttp://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/monkvive.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]