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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Dipper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asterism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Battle of Sinop
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Battle of Sinop. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- You have obviously done no research at all, not even a skeptical reading of the relevant Wiki article text, and you're spouting lines like "CNN is a reliable source!" that have *nothing to do* with the substance of the dispute. (Of course CNN is a reliable source. The CNN article you're talking about in fact says that the IPT is an activist group convened privately, does not say that the IPT is part of the International Court of Justice, etc.) Even just looking at the text shows that obviously this thing is not an official tribunal; such do not call themselves "People's Tribunals" outside of communist states, and they do not prejudge their legal conclusions by literally putting their verdict in the title of their organization ("1965 Crimes Against Humanity"). Don't just sit there camping your watchlist and thoughtlessly reverting things with handwaving policy rationales, pay some actual attention to the substance. Whether it belongs in the lede can be just disputed but restoring the version that gives a deliberately misleading impression of what the IPT was is obviously just bad editing. TiC (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)