User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

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


I have quit Wikipedia and will not be responding to posts here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish youd reconsider, you just have to set urself a limit to how long you spend on wiki a week and make sure you dont exceed it, thats far better than full retirement.:( But good luck and enjoy life either way, and thanks for all your great work in improving British Empire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks BW. It was fun working with you, and great job with helping to keep the article FA listed in the face of those POV warriors - I've been peeking in a few times to see how it's been going. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

You are of course aware of the edit restrictions on Gibraltar, I would request that you self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. (I thought we weren't supposed to template established users?) Anyway, very open to discussion on the article talk page about how this wording can be improved/moved to a different section/article - looking forward to discussing with you there in a constructive manner rather than just reverting. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Templates sometimes have a use in that their meanings are clear and cannot be miscontrued. But edit warring on your return, really is not good. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's work together on the article talk page, OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we start with a self-revert please? I've always been prepared to work with any editor but starting your return with an edit war does not augur well. I am contemplating a request to WP:AE, you may consider this a first warning. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm holding off for now on the basis of a comment in Talk:Gibraltar. However, back in October last year you reverted a content change I made, which you agreed with on the basis it was "consensus". I don't see any difference with what you've done this morning, except that you've continued to edit war to impose content and I didn't. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
[1] My last attempt to rewrite the history section to overcome problems with POV, an incomplete work in progress, reverted in its entirety before it was finished for no good reason. What do you think of it? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll take a look. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back! --Snowded TALK 11:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded! :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But rather than attempting to get me into trouble, how about we work together to improve the wording. In that vein, in this talk page message you do precisely that. You're using AE to impose changes and edit war them into the article after I have engaged on the talk page and explained my objections. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think you can dethaw that article in the manner you're doing? I object, you ignore me, make the edit anyway and then threaten me with AE restrictions. I object to the removal of that content, I am asking you to restore it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:BRD, ie Bold, Revert, Discuss. Also I didn't revert all your edits, just the one we were discussing and I am very much prepared to work on it with you. Work together being the operative word. I don't see how ignoring my comments to impose your edit fits with that. If we don't get anywhere, then there is nothing to stop you doing this in a few days time. In the mean time, I would be grateful if you'd restore content.
You will note on the talk page I actually indicated the content I felt needed to be included, which you ignored and removed. No, I don't have a veto over content but my content suggestions have been vetoed for months for no good reason by two editors acting to own the article. I have worked hard to try and accommodate other editors, something I've repeatedly demonstrated. Are you just going to veto me now, when I ask politely that you restore one edit whilst we work on improving the text?
At the risk of re-opening old wounds but I'm afraid you let that particular genie out of the bottle. Please refer back to the talk page discussion. My objection to the inclusion of San Roque was as tangential information for an overview, I have always been prepared to see it History of Gibraltar including mention of Algeciras and La Linea. I also objected to stating they went to a town founded 2 years later, the town being a consequence of the events of the capture not a destination for its refugees. That statement just grated with me as it was not the hallmark of a quality encyclopedia.
In addition, I do not object to the mention of the C24 or the UN List. I object to the usual POV pusher who would wish to pervert that list to remove any reference to self-government in Gibraltar. Further, I feel they should be mentioned to explain the apparent disparity.
I trust that having calmly explained my position for what feels like the millionth time, you will not be mistaken again. The written record is on the talk page for anyone to verify. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to get worked up about things - it's just Wikipedia, remember. I'm sure if we met face to face in a pub we'd have a good laugh about it all over a beer, so let's try not to forget that we're both people at the other end of these comments, OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am tired of it, its not a mater of getting worked up about it. So could you please stop.
My objections related mainly to history and Government. In terms of history, the complete lack of 19th Century history, the capture of 1704 wasn't treated neutrally, certain notable aspects were simply suppressed, it was ridiculous to remove the sieges as "non-notable", the church was destroyed during the siege yet the article claims it is the original Spanish building. The role played in the Peninsular Campaign is not recorded, nor is the role in the Battle of Trafalgar.
In terms of Government, its out of date, the structure of the Parliament has changed, and the powers vested in the Gibraltar Government are not accurately described. It over emphasises the UK role and downplays the local role. The self-government of Gibraltar should be accurately described, along with the UK reserved powers and the role of the C24 and the UN list.
This is why I'm asking you to restore the content while we restructure it.
I would dearly love to see the article improved, I want to work on improving it. The constant reverts are a pain, so I'd prefer not to go down that route. But don't use the AE restriction as an excuse to impose your content over my objections. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Counter offer, work in a sandpit and if we can't agree, review in a week. What do you say? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That was an offer to work together without any preconditions. You seem to wish to dictate the outcome before we even start. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is precisely why I didn't wish to comment. I don't think the purpose of the editing restriction was to clear the decks for you to ride roughshod over any objections. You may care to consider that your comments appear to a be a declaration to do just that.
I'm naturally curious. Your arguments on historical content are exactly the same ones I was trying to make 2 years ago. This was when you sided with a group of editors accusing me of suppressing information or censoring the article. So what has convinced you I was right all along? You were among a group that made editing very unpleasant for me, so I would appreciate an explanation for your sudden change of heart. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The feeling back then was mutual, but raking over the past helps noone, and I've since had a long wikibreak during which I have forgotten the past squabbles. I'm disappointed you weren't prepared to work together though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Huh, where did I say I wasn't prepared to work together? You're putting words in my mouth that were never there. I'm prepared to put past squabbles where they belong in the past and an explanation would help clear the air. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW after re-reading talk page comments, it appears you misunderstood my proposal. I made no pre-condition about any of your edits in Gibraltar or ask for any reverts. Simply to work together on an edit for a week, nothing more, nothing less. Review a week later. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I did misunderstand then, sorry. I'm willing to do that, but again, I think it's best if you kick things off with a wording that would solve what you view as "NPOV" problems, simply because you have a lot stronger views than I do on this. Personally, I'd be happy with the current P&G section, where I have moved mention of the UN list to the Disputed status of Gibraltar section. I'd also probably get rid of the "nearly complete self-government" and leave the analysis of how much self-government it really entails to the child articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I'm not allowed to. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Err, as I can't comment I can't object ;-( Wee Curry Monster talk 00:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Hi! I am very glad you have returned. You striked me as a very valuable (and fun) editor here in WP. And probably in the real world too... (I mean "fun person", not "valuable editor" whatever that may be in the real world...)

And, if I don't agree with your last proposal, hey, that's life, you can't agree always with everyone... Well, I would like to explain you my position (in order to see if you can take into consideration some points that you may be overseeing and/or -of course!- see if I am able to convince you), but I am not too sure if and how I can do it... Well, if we are allowed to start a RfC, maybe I will be able to better explain my position...

BTW, I think that your comment about using sources that already summarize Histories was interesting. In any case, you can see several summaries (besides Lonely Planet) here (I hope this does not break the AE rules):

  • Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire. p. 34.  External link in |title= (help): This is a book about Gibraltar's identity (from a mainly Gib POV) and the influence of the British empire in it; it has several historical summaries (by themes: ethnicity, economics, religion...) in page 34, 53, and (it seems) in chapter 6 which do mention the exodus to San Roque.
  • Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. p. 9.  External link in |title= (help): This is a book about the dispute; it has a 20 pages summary, and it mentions the exodus (and again, does not mention many other things currently in the Gib article).

As you see, some summaries do mention the exodus to San Roque, but none of them (including Lonely Planet) mention many other things that are in the History section (Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Conversos from Córdoba, Inquisition, Battle of Trafalgar, Crimean War, Suez Canal, ...). If we start to move some episodes from the overview article, it would be more consistent to start with those that are less notable, not with one that is mentioned by several summaries, wouldn't it?

Sorry for my long comment. Thanks and, again, welcome back! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back. I added back mention of the exodus of the population. San Roque, and the other towns, are mentioned in the Campo de Gibraltar link which the user can click on to read more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Still needs work on NPOV IMHO. Gagged. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to send me an email privately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wee Curry Monster talk 22:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mare nostrum[edit]

This article, the merger of which you were involved in, has been re-constituted here. There is currently a new merger discussion here; your comments are invited. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:European Overseas Empire[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:European Overseas Empire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

British Empire reading advice[edit]

Hello, I see you're one of the primary editors on the British Empire here...I've been wanting to do some research on the subject for awhile now, but I don't know where to start. I've heard The Oxford History and it's companions are essential, would you agree with that assessment? Cheers in advance! -- (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you mean by "research" but if you want a comprehensive and enjoyable introduction, my recommendation would be Lawrence James's Rise and Fall of the British Empire. [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Red Hat f Pat Ferrick,

Very good to see you are active again! Im relatively new on Wiki but Ive seen your constructive work on the British and Dutch Empire.

Perhaps you could take a look at: Dutch East Indies, as it struggles it way up the quality ladder.

one specific thing I wanted to mention is regarding yr much used picture: File:Evolution of the Dutch East Indies.png. I dont know your source, but the red (held in 1800) part should include the North of Sulawesi: Minahasa.

Cheers, --KARL RAN (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

British colonization of Tasmania[edit]

Whats up with your recent edits on British colonization of Tasmania. Your first edit-summary said: "rework - see talk." Which talk page, it's not on the article talk page? OKelly (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Look again, on the article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, there it is. Must have been my browser. OKelly (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:British colonization of Tasmania, and also User talk:OKelly. OKelly (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Map of British Empire[edit]

Hi The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick,

we received an email regarding File:The British Empire.png at The reader noted that (roughly translated) "the Oregon area is missing on the map of the British Empire; it was finally awarded to the United States in 1846/48; until then, however, it belonged to the area of what today is Canada and hence also to the British Empire. Could you perhaps fix that and add the Oregon area (perhaps shaded) to the map?". Any thoughts on this? Cheers, —Pill (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That's been suggested before, and as I said before, I've never seen any (reliable) sources which make the claim that Oregon was once part of the British Empire. If you or the questioner know of any, I'd be interested to see them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello, how are you? I'd like to apologize with you because now I understand everything. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your conduct.[edit]

How can anyone discuss and edit this site, when you are simply blocking them because either:

1.) You're losing an argument 2.) You're too tired to continue an argument 3.) You're too blind to see an argument.

You are a prime example of the shoddy administrative body that presents wikipedia, and with people like you spending their lives on here, and NOT benefiting the pool of human knowledge, I can safely and confidently say that this site will not improve in reputation or success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He's not blocking you. He's suggesting you should be blocked. I agree. If we allowed people like you to change featured articles to reflect their off-the-wall opinions we'd end up with something like this[3]. Redhat, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of editor the project needs. His contributions are always supported by verifiable sources, he never adds original research, and is, as far as I know, pretty neutral. If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to find a source to support your view. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Wiki-Ed. The Shoddy Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for correcting my mistake, I did indeed get my centuries mixed up. My bad! Psych0-007 (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

References - British Empire[edit]

1. Maddison 2001 p. 97 (not 98) "The population in the African territories was about 52 milion in 1913, in Asia about 330 million, in the Carribean about 1.6 million, and in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand about 18 million. The total population of the Empire was 412 million - ten times as big as Britain itself." Maddison 2001 p. 241 (not 242) in Table 8-10. World population United Kingdom: 45 649

412 + 46 = 458 in 1913. This was changed 2007-01-15 by IP → 1921

2. Ferguson. Colossus: The Price of America's Empire. 2004. p. 15 "As we have seen, the United States is considered by some historian to be more effective "hegemon" than the Great Britain. Yet in strictly territorial terms, the latter was far more impressive empire. At its maximumu extent between the world wars the British Empire covered more than 13 million square miles, approximately 23 percent of the world's land surface. Only a tiny fraction of that was accounted for the United Kingdom itself: a mere 0.2 percent."

3. Elkins, Caroline (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya. p. 5 "Queen Victoria... The British Empire encompassed nearly 13 million square miles or roughly 25 percent of the world's total landmass. Queeen Victoria presided over some 445 million subjects around the globe."

4. International Statistical Yearbook 1926. League of Nations. Geneva 1927.

Post war area km2; population estimated for 1925 (thousands); country

1,223 km2 7,525 Union of South Africa

1,000 km2 14,055 Egypt

5,992 km2 38,553 British Colonies, Protectorates and Mand. Terr. (in Africa)

2,628 km2 5,825 Anglo-Egypt. Territor. Sudan

9,834 km2 9,400 Canada

311 km2 4 Labrador

109 km2 260 Newfoundland

301 km2 2,198 British Colonies. (in America)

52 km2 250 Bhutan

4,668 km2 325,000 India

140 km2 5,600 Nepal

787.5 km2 15,229 British Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories. (in Asia)

0 km2 21 Gibraltar

0.3 km2 225 Malta

244 km2 45,170 United Kingdom

7,704 km2 5,992 Australia

269 km2 1,415 New Zealand

535.1 km2 895 British Dominions, Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories (in Oceania)

35,797.9 km2 (26.9%); 477,617 (25,1%) British Empire Total

133,535 km2 1,905,500 World Total

Regards Birkeen (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

133,535 km2 without Antarctica

Regards Birkeen (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi - sorry I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
in text:

1. population data from 1913 not from 1922 (max. extent of British Empire), earlier someone has changed one-fourth to one-fifth of the world's population at the time

2. very roughly above 13 mln sqm; 35,8 mln km2 ≈ 13,8 mln sqm

3. nearly 13 mln sqm is from Victorian times (Queen Victoria died in 1901)

I've corrected that. I've added data from 1925, from a reliable source - International Statistical Yearbook 1926 published by League of Nations (precursor of UN)

Regards Birkeen (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

British Empire[edit]

This edit seems a bit harsh. I suggest you join in the discussion on the point at issue, on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Harsh, but fair. I called it for what it is. That same old silly argument that has raged for years which does nothing to further WP and everything to waste time and talk page space. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire splitting[edit]


I've made some contributions to the Portuguese Empire recently (w/in the past 18 months) and have been wanting to make drastic improvements to the article. I've just been stuck on how exactly to go about editing it. The method of the Portuguese Wikipedia rendition is what I would prefer, a separation by regions primarily instead of a chronological. I don't know how feasible it is outside of the first Portuguese Empire if the pages were to separate, but it's definitely tenable if the page its separated.

Also, I do have a number of links in regards to adding information to the Portuguese Empire page. There's a large amount that could be at least covered

  • Add a little more information about the Turks and Portuguese fighting into a standstill into the 1580s (I've attempted to make some sort of additions, but to no avail)
  • African contact into the 16th and 17th centuries Luso-Ethiopian Alliance and Jesuit contact with Ethiopia; East Africa solidifaction, Kingdom of Kongo contact, etc.)
  • More information about the loss of territory in the Indian Ocean to Safavid Empire with Shah Abbas, cover the more important aspects of the Dutch-Portuguese conflicts and not the insignificant ones that are listed
  • Loss of territory to the Omani in East Africa and Arabian peninsula in late 16th-early 17th century

If the article were to be separated, I would suggest First Portuguese Empire 1415 - c.1663 Second Portuguese Empire c.1660-1822 Third Portuguese Empire 1822 - 1974 I suppose you could add the secession of Macau in the last section.

If you're interested, I'm more than willing to assist. I've been waiting on an opportunity to collaborate with someone. Please contact me when you get the chance, and thanks for reading!LeftAire (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

New word?[edit]

"Unnecessary analism"?! [4] I'm sure it's true, but it made me laugh. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope it catches on!  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Empire or Commonwealth[edit]

I notice that you created this page. An editor would like to change the title, and presumably every other article which mentions the term "British Empire" for the period between 1926 (or 1766?)and 1949. He's referring to a certain Oxford history (page 558, not clear which volume - presumably first) which I believe you may have a copy of. You may have a view on this? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My point was not that no material can't be deleted; it was that referenced and relevant material should not be deleted. Otherwise nothing in Wikipedia would be safe. In fact, the relevant policy says that even if you can't access the source in question, you should "assume good faith" and leave it alone. Grant | Talk 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you should read up on Wikipedia policies. "Relevance" is in the eye of the beholder - you may deem it relevant but other editors may not - there is no policy relating to this because it's impossible to have an objective criteria for "relevance", the community must decide that. And "assume good faith" is a maxim about how to treat editors' contributions. Your edit may well have been made in good faith, but that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it should stand. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I probably do need to, as you say, go out more but I bet I have forgotten more Wikipedia policy and guidelines than most Wikipedia editors have read. It's a tougher row to hoe than tax law. Anyway, there are a few that are relevant, but this one will do.

Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tag it as necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. (WP:PRESERVE)

Note that the above is a policy, not a guideline, meaning that it carries far greater weight. Grant | Talk 02:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Gibraltar) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum (again)[edit]

You were involved in a long discussion on this title, and the POV fork related to it a while ago (that was re-posted here, BTW but is now gone again); The fork article also exists on the Simple WP on the Spanish WP. I've created a simple version of the (good) Mare Nostrum article at the SWP and am planning to post an AfD request for the dud IMN article there; I've really no idea what to do about the Spanish one, as I can't read or write Spanish. This is just to let you know, and to see if you have any advice on how to pursue this stuff. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. 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)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)