User talk:Spiel496

Welcome!

Hello, Spiel496, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  Karmafist 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

666

Thank you; I've decided to "be bold", as they say, and remove all the flotsam and jetsam (factoids attributable only to coincidence) from the goddamed 666 page. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PID control

Just regarding your changes to PID controller "Varaible cant be outside the integral", are you referring to the fact that "t" appears in the limit? I can see that as an issue, but surely you can have $f(t)=t+\int _{0}^{\tau }e(t)\,dt$ ? User A1 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The problem with that expression is that the meaning of the $t$ in $e(t)$ is ambiguous. Is it the single time at which we wish to evaluate $f(t)$, or is it a variable that ranges from 0 to $\tau$? Spiel496 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense, however we should probably define t prime in the article, but i wasn't sure how to make it clear without it become quite technical. perhaps "where $t'$ is an independant variable representing the time axis?" User A1 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Really the math should be self-explanatory. If anything this article needs words removed rather than added. But I see your point -- there may be a sizeable audience that could benefit from a few words of definition. One way to link it with the text is to say that $t'$ are those times in the past that are being used to generate the present PID output. Spiel496 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed my comment about windowing the integral in PID controller, I can't seem to back it up! :( User A1 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Heat capacity into Specific heat capacity

Spiel496: I’ve temporarily got a draft of a merged version HERE on my User Page. Please review it and tell me what you think at your next convenience. User talk for Greg L 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Well, now I’ve done it. What is it that’s the sincerest form of flattery? As you will see, I folded pretty much all of the contents of Heat capacity into Specific heat capacity. The two articles seemed extraordinarily redundant to me. If what I’ve done is a major Wikipedia faux pas, feel free to revert it. However, since nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted, and since I didn’t delete the heat capacity article, I didn’t see the harm. I guess I’ll find out soon enough, won’t I? Greg L (my talk) 23:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, dear friend! The dimension of the "dimensionless" heat capacity can be calculated as its unit: dimension of ((Heat)) divided by the dimension of the ((temperature)) and the dimension of the ((number of entities)). It is the heat needed heating one molecule by one kelvin! Please calulate it again. The best books can consist of mistakes! --ZJ (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But the formula in the article also includes the ideal gas constant (R), which has units of J/K-mol.

$[C^{*}]=[{C \over nR}]={(J/K) \over {(mol)\times (J/K/mol)}}=1$

So, as defined, the C* quantity is dimensionless. Spiel496 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I missed the numerator of the fraction which ic not heat but heat capacatity. Thanks--ZJ (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on the kilogram

Spiel496. I did to the Kilogram article what I did to the Specific heat capacity article: I did some wholesale revising of it. It had degraded to a sorry state and needed many errors corrected. Unlike the Specific heat capacity article, others have what I call “squatters” who are not very enthusiastic about newcomers stirring the pot. I had added a section (Mass vs. weight) that Enuja deleted (stating she would later salt other articles with the text I had added). Well, to make a long story short, the section is back and I’m wondering what you think of it. On the following criterea, is it…

1. informative to the typical visitor to this article,
2. interesting to the typical visitor to this article, and
3. does it enhance the article?

If you have an opinion on Mass vs. weight, one way or the other, please add your comments to Request for Comment: Scope of Kilogram article. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 17:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Calimetrics logo.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Calimetrics logo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lapse Rate

Hi there, I noticed you deleted information from Mountain. Yes, I agree that the lapse rate has an impact on the temperature differentials on mountains, however, it is not the sole factor in determining such differences. . .so, I put the material back. I have no objection to the material being reworded, with information included that refutes all but a lapse rate explanation. . .if you can find a reference to replace the currently referenced material. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching Robot

You reverted in one minute...I saw the "Twinkle" tag, but is there actually a bot that checks for "shut up"? :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't screw something up -- I wasn't being very careful. I recently installed Twinkle, and to try it out, I went searching for random vandalism. So it was I the human that identified "shut up" as a possibly non-encyclopedic phrase. Spiel496 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just asking because I make it a habit of contacting everyone who does anything with robotics pages...it turns out to be a fantastic group of people. You're welcome to peek in on WP:WikiProject Robotics, btw...if you're interested in PID controllers, you would love it (or what it will soon develop into...we're having success at attracting new roboticists). I was surprised you caught the vandalism so fast. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Conventional superconductor/Type I superconductor

Thanks for your comment. You are absolutely right when you say that niobium is type II (I didn't see it when I copied the list). About the fact that BCS theory explains it... I have to check it, but I have no time now. I will write you later. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--

Ok, I'm back. Sorry, when I saw your message I really had to go. So, I am a physicist, but I am not an expert in superconductivity, and in fact that's the reason I am trying to help in this area (as when you make new things, you always understand much better everything). I am working mainly in the Spanish wikipedia about this subject. I would like to know your definitions for these concepts,

• Type I = just one critical temperature, with no mixed state
• Conventional = explained by the BCS theory

Is that your definition? I thought both definitions were equivalent, so I didn't even think about niobium (which, I agree, is a type II). If that is the definition, I don't think it is worthy to keep different articles for such close groups of materials, as we would be duplicating lots of information. I suggest merging all four articles (type I, type II, convnetional and unconventional) in another article: classification of superconductors. What do you think? Eynar Oxartum (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe those are the accepted definitions. Again, I don't have a reference available. I'm okay with your suggestion for one article. I don't have strong opinions about how subjects are grouped. Spiel496 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that you actually answered me in your talk page just a few minutes later. I was checking my own. So, thanks for reverting the articles. We have to work on it. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably you want to have a look at Superconductor classification, which I just created in English and Spanish. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again about type I and II sc

Exaggerated image showing the intrinsic difference between type I and type II superconductors. Type I have a coherence lenght ξ much bigger than the penetration depth λ, in other words, the size of the Cooper pair is much bigger then the magnetic field. * The superconducting phase is light blue. * The penetration of the magnetic field (which in this example is from both the upper and the lower sides) is red colour. * Cooper pairs are green colour.

I have made this image about type I and II superconductors. You know about this subject, so I would like to know your opinion before adding it to some articles. Thanks! Eynar Oxartum (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Your comments are not negative at all, it's exactly what I was looking for: a critical point of view. You are right, probably I was thinking of the Cooper pairs in a wrong way. As Feynman said, not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong. I will check the website you have proposed to see what can I do about. Thanks for your time! Eynar Oxartum (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tide

This is very interesting, as Googlebook provides hundreds of sources that refer to centrifugal force. It seems to me that the view of the article, on the other hand, is undocumented, and certainly no argument is given to disabuse the reader from the notion that modern texts are incorrect. I am inclined to believe the article is written by a one-sided group, who may be out to lunch. Brews ohare (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. Of course, centrifugal force can be replaced by centripetal force by changing reference frames. However, I'm unclear that that view is present in the article either. I think it behooves the proponents of the present article not to suppress a common explanation but to present it along with the reasons why their method is better. Brews ohare (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Input requested at Sunset

Hi Spiel496,

After a quick browse through the history of Sunset I've noticed you've previously edited the page. Your input is now requested in choosing a new lead picture here. Thanks for your time, --Fir0002 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Steorn

Your edit to Steorn was unhelpful, especially as your edit summary did not inform readers what error had been produced. You restored information is not and can not be substantiated by the cited reference, the reason I have reverted you. Please do not revert without giving a reason. If there is an error which does not involve the content I removed, then please fix it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm doing my best. I'll try to fix the error, but in the meantime it seems best to get the big red error message out of the article. You might be better positioned to fix the error, since it was your edit that produced it. Spiel496 (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. I have edited the article to remove further erroneous claim/s which depended on that reference, so that red stuff will disappear Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Superheating.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Superheating.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

publisher

Interesting. there are some complications. Please email me. You do not have your email enabled. DGG (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for correcting my German grammar at Conficker.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunset response - Thanks

I didn't notice your message to me on the Talk:Sunset until today, a month after you posted it. I don't know why I didn't run across it earlier. After removing a major chunk of text, I failed to stick around for the discussion, and for that I apologize. I have responded now. Cheers, Spiel496 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spiel496, Thanks for the comments. In April I noticed that you had responded to my Sunset comment; many thanks and please accept my apology for my very tardy response to you here! I read the exchange between you and the "Good Dr. Fry." I agree with your comments. Having seen what Dr Fry has to say in his contribution to the Sunset article, and having read his comments to you, I have decided that, at least in the near term, I will not re-visit the article with my own work. This is in the belief that Dr. Fry will simply replace his previous contributions to the article, regardless of how incorrect they might be (e.g., comparison of colors and sunrise vs. sunset, just as an example). It pains me to see such work pass as "science," but honestly, who has the time to stifle every example of such craziness in this world? Perhaps I'll change my mid regarding this issue at a future date, but right now I just don't know if it is worth the effort to put up a fight.

Sincerely, accas1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accas1 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Think I found a mistake?

I sincerely hope not, and I think it's a simple typo on your part (no biggie :p). Please check my comments in the discussion page of the PID Controller article. Cheers, Mike Bsodmike (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. Oh well, at least it didn't end up in the article. Spiel496 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Speed of Sound

I reverted your edit of Speed of Sound. I'm not sure which part of WP:LEDE is being violated, but in defining the speed of sound, I think we should avoid using the terms "speed" and "sound". Maybe there is a better way of wording it. Spiel496 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You're probably aware of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, or whatever iteration of those guidelines we're on now, but I'll mention it just in case. I appreciate your point about recursion regarding defining a term, and defining the topic is part of WP:LEDE. However, since we're not defining speed or sound individually, I don't think we'd risk circular logic using those words. Also, we're not defining the term "speed of sound" absolutely, as for a dictionary say, but in the context of introducing an article, and people can look up "speed" and "sound" for individual definitions, if acquaintance with these concepts shouldn't be presumed here.

One of the main things I wanted to fix re WP:LEDE was the first sentence. Reviewing the version I edited, I would point out that I actually used and linked the term sound wave, in case that nuance is relevant, and I did not use the term speed in defining the topic in the first sentence. IMHO, I think trying to define speed and sound individually within an article on the speed of sound is labored, but I'm not hugely invested on that point. So I'd still go for the version as I edited it, and I think I'll revert it as such, since I don't think that version contradicts your expressed points, but in deference to avoiding reversion per se, I do so with the attached encouragement to modify from there as you see fit. ENeville (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sunset/sunset edit wars

A new edit warring episode over the scientific explanation of the sunset and sunrise coloring has started, involving The Good Doctor Fry and Wanbli-g53, which I suspect to be his/her sockpuppet. You may be interested in participating in the discussion going on here. Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• After the recent edits of The Good Doctor Fry to Sunset and Sunrise, in which the same long text was forced into the Color section, I will remove both articles from my watchlist. The alternative would be to make a request for another block, but I'm not interested to be the (only) "bad guy". Such initiative, if considered adequate in the present circumstances, should be taken by the people involved in improving the article. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I understand, though. Sorry I wasn't able to jump in more often. Spiel496 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Spiel496, I much appreciate your explanations of what transpired. I did not realize that asking a younger friend to review the article and to make up his own mind on the utility of the content violated Wiki policies. I apparently have misunderstood Alvegaspar's written complaints to the moderators, and I seem to have misunderstood that his repeated deletions of the NOAA and NASA references were not personally motivated. I also much appreciate your support.

I apologize for my misunderstandings. You have enough history on this topic to remember that I asserted the importance of both Rayleigh and Mie scattering 2 or 3 years ago, and I asserted the importance of larger particles, particulates, and aerosols. During those times, I wrote that I had limited access to reference materials, but that I knew the understandings to be correct, where scattering of light does not absorb the light nor does it significantly remove wavelengths, but instead scattering phenomena simply re-direct and re-distribute that Electromagnetic (EM) energy out into 3 dimensional different directions, reducing the sunlight's intensity in the line of the viewer and shifting the spectra in the line of the viewer, but leaving the overall intensity and overall EM relatively constant (conservation of energy, where the energy has not be lost to vibrational, nor rotational energy, nor electronic transitions, nor ejection of particles, nor increases in kinetic energy.)

The NOAA and NASA articles finally resolved those 3 years of combined misunderstandings, which I considered to be significant progress - and in this context, Alvegaspar's combination of actions confused me: he never explained why he deleted the NOAA and NASA references that finally resolved the editing conflict to Wiki standards; he offered no technical nor scientific explanations as to why he deleted key technical content; he proposed his own factually incomplete and factually incorrect versions of the articles; and he titled his versions as "consensus views", and he made formal & less than factual complaints to the Wiki authorities about me.

The recent versions of sunrise/sunset articles that describe general attenuation, or general losses, or general reductions of wavelengths, or general intensity losses are simply not factual. The scattering processes alter the frequencies and intensity of light that reaches the viewer, but they do not "remove light" nor do they "remove wavelengths" in general ways - only in the direction of the viewer.

As a sidelight for actual absorbance and absorption processes (which you have proposed in the past) => processes that actually remove light: There is some shifting of sunlights wavelengths due to Doppler Effects: where IR light from the sun heats particulates and aerosols, and that IR light is removed by conversion to kinetic energy (plus some vibrational and rotational energies) where the kinetic energy is expressed as Brownian Motion - all of which results actual losses of IR and near IR wavelengths of light, and these absorbances and absorptions also result in Doppler Broadening of the various visible and UV frequencies of sunlight that are simultaneously being scattered by Rayleigh and Mie scattering - but this significant amount of the spectral shifting of sunrise and sunset sunlight due to Doppler Broadening and Brownian Motion and Black-body radiation, clearly go beyond the scope of the physics texts that have been quoted, (not a single Physics text I've read touches on any of these phenomena), and they go beyond the NASA and NOAA references, and yet while true and significant - these added topics of conversion of sunlight's IR radiation to kinetic energy & Brownian Motion & hence Doppler broadening of the Rayleigh and Mie scattered light (and also to rotational & vibrational energies), and the losses due to particulate matter and aerosols absorbing higher frequencies of sunlight and then broadly re-radiating them as black body EM radiation, are all real phenomena that affect the colors of sunsets and sunrises, but are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I apologize for misunderstanding both your and Alvegaspar's actions, and hope that you and he can work constructively in the future to create and maintain accurate and precise versions of the major processes that create the colors of sunrises and sunsets. I am a bit passionate about this topic, since I have heard 4 decades of incorrect explanations of these phenomena by High School Physics teachers, by University Physics professors, and various Physics grad. students, and their oft-repeated incorrect usage of spectroscopic terminology, and incorrect explanations of elegant and beautiful processes seem to continue to contaminate multiple generations of students around the world, and I see Wikipedia as being a good vehicle for correcting the misunderstandings. I believe Wiki to be valuable in this process, since I have seen many many web references this past 2 years that have lifted your and my past Sunrise and Sunset explanations and put them in scores of places on the internet (which fuels my interests in keeping the current appropriate references in the Wiki articles, and in keeping the current articles factual, accurate, precise, and technically correct).

My passion seems to have led me astray, so, again I apologize, and I much appreciate your support, and I acknowledge that I have erred, since my recent actions have contaminated your views of me and my ongoing efforts = proof of my errors. My bad...189.148.36.135 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sky

Hello Spiel496, I noticed you removed the photo from Sky that we discussed in Talk. I didn't mean to place that photo there; it was done in error. I took many photos that morning. The one we discussed in talk was originally posted there because I liked the colors and contrast best of the lot, but there was no foreground. Tonight, I replaced the photo in the Sky section in the free space below and across from appropriate text; with another photo from the lot that has Not been messed with. The foreground is there, because it's there. If you decide to remove this photo from that section...that's your call. However, it is not the same image as the one we had discussed previously in talk. Thanks. Pocketthis (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. I really like the colors in that photo. Spiel496 (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:EFM code.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EFM code.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Be Careful!

I note your contribution on the Heat Talk Pages. It is sufficient to say I got topic banned indefinitely for my efforts! --Damorbel (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to steer clear of the angry mobs, thanks. :-) Spiel496 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello, Spiel496! I've seen that you are a physicist and your input is useful in regard to the aspect discussed at Talk:Neutron#Radius.--82.137.23.47 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lunar Eclipse Project

Hi! As part of a class assignment Victoria (talk), Andrew (talk), Kieran (talk), and I (Jordan (talk)) will be working on expanding the article about lunar eclipses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lunar_eclipse). We noticed that you have been writing on the talk page on the article, and we were hoping you might be able to help us out with getting started. For each of us, this is our first time seriously editing Wikipedia, but we wanted to add citations in the Lunar Eclipse in Mythology, Blood Moon, and Occurrence sections. We also wanted to add material to the Lunar Eclipse in Mythology section, Lunar versus Solar Eclipse section, and the Multimedia section.

In case you were wondering, the talk page for our class website is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Cornell_University/Online_Communities_(Fall_2014)

Thank you,

Jordan (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi can you help me up

Hi my edits are been reverted on the article EmDrive can you help me settle this on the talk page: Talk:EmDrive#I.27m_been_reverted_by_the_user_GliderMaven

My edits regarding about the potential of the EmDrive. Thanks. Quantanew (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you misinterpreted my earlier activity on Talk:EmDrive as support for the topic. I cannot help you. Spiel496 (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

An interesting lecture on waveguide physics: Danwoodard (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spiel496. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spiel496. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spiel496. 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)

Proposed deletion of File:EFM code.png

The file File:EFM code.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, SVG version available on Commons.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. creffett (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)