User talk:Speed74

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Speed74, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Volareweb.com destinations[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Volareweb.com destinations, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.

Speed74, I'm going to pipe up. In this case, the case would still apply as you are a primary contributor. It would probably be better to merge the article to volareweb.com, but I do note that the destinations are essentially the same. I'll also point out here that most of the other airlines tend to have a destinations list integrated into their own article. I encourage you to continue to be bold, but in the meantime, please defer to using the {{hangon}} tag on the article, and please consider the possibility of a merge if there is missing information. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, if there are more than ten destinations, there must be a separate article for them. The destinations aren't included on the main article. Also, it wan't me that created the article, and I have been on Wikipedia for a while now, so that first paragraph is a bit out of place. Speed74 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
A little point of correction - it's not that there must be, it's more that in many cases, it's a good idea. I also note that United Airlines has such a list, incidentally. In any event, adding to this factor too is that you note with a recent edit that Volareweb.com is a former subsidiary of Alitalia, and have ceased operations - so it may just be better to keep it in one spot.

By the way, I highly recommend getting that hangon on the page. I'll put the {{hangon}} in place, but you need to post something about this in the article's talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, the speedy was declined. I've brought it over to Articles for Deletion for further discussion. Note, we're looking for consensus for whether this article should be kept or removed, or otherwise dealt with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alitalia[edit]

I changed the formatting because 1) the same changes have been made to Singapore Airlines by user Gleppe; 2) why not tighten the table by mating the Orders and Options column together?

Also, a few days back, you said that the fleet table colours have to match their respective airlines, how come Qantas and Malév Hungarian Airlines have their table colour as purple, Japan Airlines's colour as blue?

One of your comments made when reverting my edit was that the table colour was too dark for the letterings to be black-if Alitalia's table colour is changed to green, then I'll add <abbre> to the table. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 10:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read and tell me what you think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 5#Fleet Table Colours and tell me what you think about it? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"How to add images to a Wikipedia article is by definition impossible and incomprehensible - if anyone out there knows how to do it, any picture regarding Alitalia (post-2009), particularily regarding airplanes in the new Alitalia livery, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :-) Speed74 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)"

Hi! To add a picture, first you have to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. See http://commons.wikimedia.org

You can see Upload to the side. You can make your Wikipedia account global so it works on the Commons too. If you need instructions for that, I can tell you how to do that.

Once you upload the photos, then you can add them like this: [[File:IMAGENAME.JPG/PNG/whatever|thumb|DESCRIPTION HERE]] WhisperToMe (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Whispertome! I definitely don't think I'll be embarking on that route however :-). Speed74 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My language userbox[edit]

How am I supposed to know which is correct? I'm not a native. ;)

I had en-3 on the Polish wiki some years ago as well, but I decided to downgrade it after I once reviewed my English skills critically. I'd say - talk to me as if I'm en-3 (in other words: don't bother to specially make your language easier to understand just for my sake), but better expect an en-2-level English in return. ;)

I shall choose a single level between all wikis. Thanks, viny.tell // 20:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Airline destinations[edit]

Hello Speed74. I saw that you reverted the changes on Alitalia destinations made by User:Ohconfucius quoting it as per WP:Linking. I fail to find where he is on about and he has gone ahead and changed all destination articles. Can you help in restoring them back to what they were, countries linked, etc?

Thanks,

Zaps93 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Zaps, glad you're active again. I noticed this too - no idea why he went off and changed every single airline article just to have it his own way!? He's gone ahead and said he'll change WP:Airlines now however, so unless we embark on a laborious edit-war, there's not much that can be done. Speed74 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems that you have already starded reverting his edits, so if you want I can help, although I don't like getting in arguments with people.Speed74 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Speed74. I saw that you have deleted the seasonal charter destinations on Alitalia destinations. As you can see I deliberately added a link with the official communication from Alitalia itself. I think this is a more that reliable source to state that Alitalia will operate these routes. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.157.68 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, the reason we often don't include charter flights is that they may change destinations or stop operating at any time without any easy way to know about it. However, since it would seem these charter destinations may be more stable, I have decided to include them in the article but using the format suggested by WP:Airlines, so as to differntiate the charter destinations clearly from the scheduled destinations, and to exclude them from the destinations count. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Speed74. I confirm that these destinations are going to be operated at least until the end of the Winter 2012/2013 season, as it is stated in the press release I had previously quoted. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.44.25.126 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

AZ/AP[edit]

AZ and AP still have independent AOCs, so they need to be listed as such. If you have information to the contrary, its welcome. Thanks, jasepl (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

LH MXP-OTP[edit]

Flights are bookable on Lufthansa's website as LH3736 beginning October 31, 2011 and it is on their timetables. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Delta hubs[edit]

Why you remove CVG, AMS, CDG as hubs? It is listed on their website! And has DL officially "de-hub" CVG. Can you provide a source saying that DL officially "de0hubeed" CVG? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps CVG is still a secondary hub, but CDG and AMS do not require a source to see that DL only has flights to its other hubs and now own-metal connecting passengers.Speed74 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been some problems listing AMS and CDG in the past and here is the discussion on the CDG matter Talk:Delta_Air_Lines/Archive_3#Missing_hub. Perhaps you can discuss this at Talk:Delta Air Lines. Snoozlepet (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for the info. Clearly Delta has a hub neither at Paris nor at Amsterdam, so I will do my best to resolve the matter. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem. i saw that you started a discussion at the Delta talk page (where you mentioned AMS and CDG) but did not mention anything about CVG. I hope too that we can resolve this. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Per this Delta still has hubs at CVG, CDG, and AMS. Thanks Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
And, please do not continue to revert our actions, I'm sorry, but we can't go against a reliable source from Delta itself, our opinions do not over rule that. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not revert any of your (singular) actions, nor does DL have a hub at CDG or AMS. It is not a matter of opinion, more of dealing with misleading info on DL's website - I quote: "Delta offers customers more than 13,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-JFK, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita." Delta talks of hubs in Amsterdam and Paris, but does not explain that these are infact KL and AF Hubs, not DL. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
Right -- but the fact that Delta calls them hubs confirms it, we cannot go against what they say, if they say they have a hub there, they do. You can't say they don't...Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You aren't a vandalist[edit]

I reverted your changes because your edits do not meet the criteria WP:MOSLINK and WP:MOS, about making internal links to countries articles and levels of content. You aren't a vandalist but the style is important. Bye. D6h What's on your mind? 20:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blanking Alitalia Airport[edit]

Hi, I wanted to let you know I reverted your blanking of Alitalia Airport. Blanking an article is not the proper way to delete it. Instead, if you think it needs to be deleted, you should nominate it for deletion, see WP:AFD for details and instructions. Monty845 18:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Monty, the article is hardly ever viewed and hasn't been edited for years, also the information is already provided in another article so maybe we can redirect. Speed74 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alitalia Airport with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do? The article provides no information and I have already deleted other articles like this. If you oppose the deletion then please give a reason otherwise I don't see why the article shouldn't be deleted.Speed74 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alitalia to Tripoli[edit]

Hello, you reverted my information about Alitalia flights to Mitiga Airport saying they will fly to TIP next week. What is the source of this information? This timetable says Alitalia will fly to Mitiga till 11 December and start flying to TIP on 12 December. Regards, Ed88 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes it would seem that the time has been prolonged, so it may be worth mentioning it in the articles but clearly stating it as a temporary service nonetheless, as has been done. Speed74 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of contents[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alitalia destinations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change the format or if you don't like the table, then I would suggest bringing it up for discussion at WP:AIRLINES and gain new consensus before changing. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: Yes, thanks for the automatic message which has not much to do with what actually happened. The table format is confusing the destinations, that's why I replaced it with extremely clear edit summary and posted in talk, and no-one minded for over a week so... Obviously if you are tied up with some rule that doesn't even exist (it is a choice wether to use table or list format as per the WP Airlines), then there's no point in me trying to change the article. Speed74 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Years for start dates![edit]

uhh....consensus was reached there! A lot of people engaged in the discussion and all were in favor for adding the year! 68.113.120.216 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No consensus was reached, the main supporter of adding years simply said he "hoped" people wouldn't remove years anyway. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Everyone who participated in the discussion agreed that the year is always included no matter what. STOP! 68.113.120.216 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the discussion which is obviously a different one than the one I viewed because the one I saw did not reach a consensus (I apologise for the confusion), I still see that most of the airport or airline articles I deal with still don't always include the year (even without my input), and in past times the year was always excluded, so adding it in some cases has only created inconsistency. And there was no need to become angry. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It was the discussion from August 2011 the one i linked in the MXP article that i was talking about the editors who participated in the discussion came to an agreement and to just include the year future dates. I suggest continuing it on the talk page. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments wanted[edit]

Hello, Speed74. On WT:AIRLINES, we are currently discussing amendments to the destination table format and I thought you might be interested. You have been a long-time critic of the table format and it would be nice to see your opinions on this new format. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Compude, to be honest these discussions will probably be interminable and not amount to much. The table format seems to be accepted by most, and there's no way I alone can change this. In fact my only motivation in arguing against the table format was that the article Alitalia destinations looked better and was far more manageable in the list format. Now I've just stopped monitoring that article, it doesn't get many views anyway. In general I would say to keep destination lists as simple as possible, but I'm not that interested in contributing to whatever new consensus will be reached. If there's any hope of returning to the list format though, let me know! hehe... Speed74 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine with me. I just thought that you might be interested in commenting. And I don't think we are going to go back to the list format, but it seems that the general consensus is to get rid of IATA/ICAO codes, and possibly to get rid of flags. It's going to take a while to get to a consensus because I proposed lots of things to change. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alitalia fleet[edit]

I do not know why every time the delete my edits on the "Alitalia fleet," but I know with certainty that the changes you make are wrong: the Italian forum aviazionecivile.org reported day by day the situation of the fleet updated almost "real time". Therefore I encourage you to rely more Italian's forum than at sites that are updated every now and then contain incorrect or outdated information. Updating once and for all of Alitalia's fleet in the hope that you understood to do more affidamente forum. Thank you and good cooperation on the Wikipedia 's page Alitalia! :-) --Wind of freedom (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I've left your numbers as they were, but it's a Wikipedia rule not to use forums as a ref, so I removed the forum as a ref, and if another editor changes the numbers according to CH-aviation (which is reliable even if updating only once every few months) then they are fully justified in doing so. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC).
Update: as the forum keep on changing their mind, I've decided to stick to CH-aviation with updates once every couple of months - more is not necessary. This is in line with Wikipedia standards. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
I agree with what you say, but the forum will change because many aircraft are in the phase-out. The forum is always updated, ch-aviation reports errors too. lets handle the "fleet" to me, please.
For example, is now coming EI-RND, the fourth Embraer E190 that will be in SkyTeam livery. Before this plane will be placed in ch-aviation it will pass in time!
Also this forum is Italian and most aware of the situation of Alitalia fleet, do not you think? Subscribers to the forum there are several pilots, stewardesses of the Italian airline, I think it's much more than this forum attendendibile ch-aviation. Am I right?--Wind of freedom (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like even on the forum 18 MD80's are listed, just that eight of them are in phase out - these can still be included on the list as they belong to the Alitalia fleet and there is a note in the table saying the MD80's are to be phased out by 2013. As you can see at WP:BLOGS "Internet forum posts (...) are largely not acceptable as sources". I think most Wikipedia readers will be satisfied with an Alitalia Fleet list that is updated once every few months anyway. You can try bringing up the issue on the Alitalia or the WP:Airlines talk page, but I think most editors will agree that a forum is not to be used as a source. In any case the forum page is one of the external links at the bottom of the Alitalia article, so interested readers can take a look at it if they wish.
PS. I'm also not sure where you got the c/s with Eritrean from... Speed74 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
surely you're right, but we both know what that means bringing Ch-aviation, we report a situation fleet is not updated and therefore incorrect. So we know what it means both that the forum is correct.
As a matter of principle, one can not argue "so the reader think that it is enough that the fleet is updated every two months ..." NO! THINGS TO BE MADE GOOD! We report what we know is correct.
PS: Curiosity staff in Wikipedia you will only deal with Italian airlines. Why? Are you in? Know the situation well in them? Simple curiosity, you're not obligated to respond :-) --Wind of freedom (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok since we haven't managed to agree I'll bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines and get support from other editors. As for your question, yes I am in part Italian, and since I don't have much time in the week I just edit articles to do with Airlines in Italy, which don't have many editors to support them. Speed74 (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm just getting involved because of Speed74's petition at WP:AIRLINES. Regarding all the above, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't need to keep the fleet table updated to the latest minute, let alone using an unreliable source. I therefore concur with Speed74 in their vision of the discussion. Separately, there's nothing wrong with their intervention in Italian-related airline articles only...--Jetstreamer Talk 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As a general rule, blogs and forums should never ever be trusted as reliable sources. I agree with Jetstreamer entirely, we don't need the table updated in real-time. —Compdude123 04:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical fleet and Air One[edit]

Ok, you're right. I will create the table with the only aircraft in the fleet of AZ-CAI since 2009, but the date of introduction into the fleet of past put the AZ-LAI. Also I would like to propose to divide the fleet from air alitalia one. This page is not called "Alitalia Group"! What do you think about? --Wind of freedom (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wind of Freedom, I've been away for a bit but am now back. I think we should include the B737's in the historical fleet as they belonged to Alitalia-CAI from 2009 to 2010. By the way, remember to wait for CH-aviation before editing the fleet list. Speed74 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: I saw it wasn't you who edited the fleet list, so apologies. Speed74 (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you were not there more :-) Welcome back! The fleet list updated as I Planespotter.net which is much more updated than CH Aviation. I removed the B737 fleet from historical because even if CAI were always of Air One, and then I think it's stupid to enter airline Air One fleet in the history of Alitalia. I added "2012" release date of the E170 because I'm actually all out fleet. But anyway, I put the link next just for you, so you can see for themselves.
Regards, See you soon!
PS: but whether there is something you do not like to come to me to tell me? ok? :-) --Wind of freedom (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Sei italiano vero?--Wind of freedom (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alitalia - Qantas: codeshare?[edit]

Please don't edit Alitalia'page when you're not sure about the information. Above all, please when you want to delete, check what you are deleting because you delete also information not concerning what you're interested!

Look here:
http://www.alitalia.com/IT_IT/millemiglia/earning_miles/partner/index.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wind of freedom (talkcontribs) 18:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear WindOfFreedom, I entirely respect your edits, however the table of fleet information should remain in the standard form to avoid complication. As for the Qantas issue, Qantas is a partner of the MilleMiglia program, however no code-share exists between AZ and QF, as outlined in the latest Ulisse magasines which provide the updated and complete list. The webpage which showed an AZ-QF code-share was a page from one of the old Alitalia websites which was not updated over the years. I have also checked on the Sydney airport website and it appears that Qantas has code-shares with AF, BA, MU, IB, LH, AY, AA and 9W but not AZ. If you can find a route on which a code-share exists, please show it to me. For going to Australia Alitalia uses a code-share with Etihad airways: MXP-AUH-SYD AZ7070-AZ3928 op. by EY; and also MXP-AUH-SYD AZ7068-AZ3926 op. by EY (along with other routings). Regards, Speed74 (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, tries to be correct![edit]

You are well aware, however, that what you write is completely unfounded? Because while you're not going to enter the fleet in 2001? Please, as we both know that what I write myself and the others are right, let it stay. Also on the numbers of "Ulisse" as the fleet is indicated by us. PS: would you really dare to report someone just because he writes as the fleet is REALLY? Do you want to continue to lie to the readers? If you have some 'common sense, you do not know that you update Wikipedia and inserting real data. With pleasure, --Wind of freedom (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear WindOfFreedom, I am not lying to the readers. The fact is the numbers that you are entering are in no way verifiable by the readers, the numbers that I am putting in are the most updated numbers available that the readers can easily check, increasing the reliability of the article. Wikipedia is not interested in your numbers which change their mind every week, contradict the reference, and can't be checked by a normal user. I will replace the fleet numbers by what is present in February Ulisse edition, and please ONLY CHANGE them by first providing a more recent Ulisse number as a ref, otherwise I will continue to revert you for unfounded edits. Also there is neither any reason to include WindJet as a subsidiary, nor any reason to exclued Air One fleet from the list. Speed74 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Alitalia Airbus have indicated 51 that says "Including Air One aircraft" but at bottom it says "Air One fleet" that lists 8 Airbus A320 configured for 180 seats. Since the page is of Alitalia and Alitalia and Air One airlines are well-detached (a bit 'as Iberia and Vueling, Transavia and KLM or Lufthansa and Germanwings, for instance). I have not seen in any airline are included as well the aircraft companies subsidiaries.
So I will take off from the list. IMHO even take it off the air CityLiner Alitalia, what do you think? --Wind of freedom (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think since CityLiner is not branded as different from Alitalia at all (ie. the user sees no difference), the fleets should definitely be kept combined. I see your reasoning about Air One however, please be sure to keep a note on the Alitalia page saying "excludes Air One fleet" if you'd like to keep the Air One fleet in its own article. Speed74 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Orgreave, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Keri (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Keri, since the issues with the article have not been discussed on the talk page for over 3 years, I thought it would be acceptable to remove at least the oldest maintenance template. The stale discussion specifically refers to the factual accuracy issues, so maybe that's the template that we should remove. In any case, I don't think these templates are helping anyone, and the lack of citations is already flagged at the appropriate points within the article. Speed74 (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Speed74. 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)

June 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

I noticed your recent edit to Grenfell Tower fire does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I see you sometimes use ESs, but please try to use more; speed isn't everything! Trafford09 (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Speed74. 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)