User talk:Commator~enwiki

Three revert rule

As of this edit you are at three reverts for today (and my followup puts me at 3 as well). I'm just letting you know about the three revert rule, which is that no user may revert something more than 3 times in 24 hours. (You've gone over this limit before, so I wasn't sure if you were aware of the rule.) - Rainwarrior 18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Unblock

I notice that you reverted your last change as I was implementing this block and will therefore unblock you. Please refrain from edit warring. Content must be supported by reliable sources or it is liable to be removed. Ronnotel 19:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Educating ourselves about Wikipedia policies and practices

Hello Commator. I would like to suggest that we should educate ourselves about Wikipedia policies and practices that relate to listing "tributes" to famous people. This question must have arisen on pages other than Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Lots of famous people get mentioned in ways that could be considered a tribute to them. Perhaps we could find a place where a similar dispute happened, and see how it was resolved? Right now I don't know what is policy or what is common practice, much less what should be policy and practice! Can you help me get a better understanding of this -- again I mean on articles other than the one about Tsiolkovsky? (sdsds - talk) 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sdsds. I have such ideas on this matter. It is incorrectly to interpret imposition of the modest bunch of flowers to famous monument as self-promotion. It is incorrectly to remove modest bunch of flowers from a non-notable admirer, which is placed on the famous monument. Also it is incorrectly to be afraid that very many of such bunches are possible. As for K. E. Tsiolkovsky, it is bad that just this matter led to the article blocking during his 150 anniversary. Commator 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Synthesizer, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jrod2 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Forging do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Forging. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Unfortunately your edit was not in comprehensible English. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the Wikipedia in a language you have a thorough command of, instead of English Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost 3 years I contribute to the English Wikipedia. I also contribute Wikipedia in my native language. Your notice is first in my practice, so I hope my English is so uncomprehensible only for you, but my contribution was improved and retrieved. Thank you for constructive criticism. --Commator (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Forging

I have just read a discussion at Talk:Forging, in which you made extensive contributions. I see that you think that your link additions are supported by consensus, despite the fact that several others have expressed disagreement with you, and none have expressed support. I also see that you believe that the opposition to you is maliciously motivated, a sort of personal vendetta. I have spent some time looking at the contributions of all the editors involved, including yourself, and I have found no evidence of such a vendetta. I have no reason to doubt that your comments are sincere expressions of your beliefs, but I likewise have no reason to doubt that other editors' comments are sincere expressions of their beliefs.

A request for comments has been made at Talk:Forging, and I have made a response. Unfortunately you will see that my response is not very positive. This is due not to any personal animosity towards you, but rather to a perception that you have not yet responded constructively to other editor's attempts at discussion. I do hope that you can read what I have written, understand my concerns, and make a more positive response to other editor's approaches.

You have been invited to seek arbitration from an outsider, but do not appear to have taken up the offer. Unfortunately I do not think I can offer to mediate, since in the past I have reverted one or more of your edits, so I do not regard myself as uninvolved. However, it is still possible for you to seek help in resolving the issue if you wish to. A number of routes to dispute resolution are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 3D modeling. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not scare me by the blocking. I know your dirty methods, and I understand that you and Johnunuq get pleasure from destroying other people's contributions. You and he wrote nothing in the article 3D modeling. Your contributions are only "undid" and "reverted". You are not contributors and you're more dangerous for WP than vandals. --Commator (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that, at the conclusion of your block, you not readd links to this site without a strong consensus to do so. I am not completely clear from looking at contributions whether or not this is a site that you own or that your employer owns (one of the comments on the reliable sources noticeboard seemed to imply that to be the case), but if you are in any way affiliated with it, please note that under our conflict of interest guideline, it is strongly discouraged to edit in ways that you benefit personally. Adding links to your own site is not appropriate. If there is any question whatsoever, you should make sure that there is strong agreement as to the suitability of an external link prior to it being added. --B (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commator~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was not 3RR in article 3D modeling and links are suitable

Decline reason:

I've reviewed Talk:3D modeling and I can't find the discussion where you and the others agreed that this was the best version of the article. Edit-warring instead of seeking conensus is disruptive, and just annoys everyone involved, including you. That's why we have a rule against it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just because it's marginally over 24hours does not excuse the editing...

1. 17:03, 9 July 2010 Commator (talk | contribs | block) (16,520 bytes) (Undid revision 372566601
2. 07:12, 12 July 2010 Commator (talk | contribs | block) (16,520 bytes) (Undid revision 372613341
3. 18:53, 12 July 2010 Commator (talk | contribs | block) (16,520 bytes) (Undid revision 373081101
4. 08:36, 13 July 2010 Commator (talk | contribs | block) (16,520 bytes) (Undid revision 373125959

Most would regard that as a clear violation of WP:3RR  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commator~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That is not <<... a clear violation of WP:3RR ...>>. That is a clear evidence of possibilities of TheRealFennShysa (talk) to convert abovementioned menace into reality.

Decline reason:

You do not need to breech WP:3RR in order to be in the middle of an edit war. This is clear edit-warring, no holds barred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commator~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This blocking is far from honesty. The reason by which B (talk) has blocked me was not edit war. Invented by he/she reason was 3RR. Moreover before I was blocked TheRealFennShysa (talk) menaced by the blocking even if I <<... do not technically violate the three-revert rule ...>>.

Decline reason:

The second part of your complaint makes no sense. "Menaced by the blocking"? I have no idea what that means, but WP:NOTTHEM would be a good place to start. The fact of the matter is that you were edit warring. You may not have broken 3RR, but you were very clearly edit warring. Smashville^talk 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You should make yourself more familiar with the rules against edit-warring- you don't understand them, yet, and that means you're likely to be blocked again in the future for breaking them. When you know that other users disagree with you, you stop, discuss, and seek consensus- you don't repeatedly undo other users' edits. Stopping and discussing it just works better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's very pity that your persistent attempts to teach me are infertile. I can't take seriously the arguments of human who is a kind of odd person (feminist, lesbian). I doubt that common sense for you more valuable than numerous rules. So you'll necessarily try to destroy by the rules the remnants of common sense. It's very pity that humans like you are aimed to use any possibility to teach not only odd persons. --Commator (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, because I'm a lesbian, you aren't going to ever follow Wikipedia's rules. Would you like me to simply block you indefinitely? If you're planning to never follow the rules, that's the inevitable outcome, so it might save time to just do it now. Or, if you prefer, I could see if I can find a straight, white, American Republican to explain the same rules to you- do you think you'd be willing to follow them if someone else told you about them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No you understand me uncorrectly because your very deformed common sense is ready to lead you to immediate ending of discussion by indefinitely blocking of opponent. I understand that you may to do so because you're a kind of odd person with some administrative rights. It is not my intention, but your and only your assumption that, because you're a lesbian, I am not going to ever follow Wikipedia's rules. I only said that it's very pity that humans like you are aimed to use any possibility to teach not only odd persons. --Commator (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That was actually really difficult to understand, and I don't think I got it. Is English a second language for you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

English is not my native language. Unfortunately in my country English even is not third language so far. --Commator (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll do my best to understand, and not make fun at all. Your English is a lot better than my Spanish. What's your first language? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Russian is my native language, but my native country is Ukraine, so I good understand by listening Ukrainian. People in my native town mostly speak Russian. English for me is very important because the information I need for my valid life is very poor in Russian and almost is void in Ukrainian. --Commator (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool- I don't really know very much about Ukraine. I understand better why you thought I was 'odd,' but where I live, being a feminist or a lesbian really isn't that odd. Some people might take that as an insult, but I'm sure you didn't mean to be insulting. You really do have to stop undoing other people's edits- but if you're right about what you want to do, you can usually convince people by discussing it. When that doesn't work, there's a whole list at WP:DISPUTE of things that you can try other than undoing other people's edits. Undoing others' edits never works because, as you've seen, the other person can undo just as often as you can. But if you can agree together on what an article should say, then the article is better for it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My age is almost 57 years old. --Commator (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're a little older than I am, then. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You may like to read WP:COI and especially note the following paragraph

"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of other editors. Instead, editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse which avoids the need to formally identify the user. In other cases, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and other policies may help counteract biased editing"

If you have any evidence about COI problems then WP:COIN is the place to go. However note that you cannot assume that because a nickname used elsewhere on the web is the same as a username here, that they are one and the same, it is sometimes the case that the Wikipedia user is a fan of the person.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Even when it is the same person, the way to deal with an editing conflict is to discuss it, or use some useful way of resolving the dispute. Not to harass the person you're disagreeing with. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that Commator's deleted posts had nothing to do with the edit conflict which started this. He was trying to insert links to a site which had already been flagged on the reliable sources noticeboard as problematic. There was no COI on my part on the 3D modeling article where this started - Commator has yet to address the point about why metal-art.com.ua is a reliable source, or his relationship to the site, given his recent efforts to insert it into multiple articles. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the problems of article John E. Hudgens I can't discuss on it's talk page and must discuss at my page? --Commator (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week (seven days) for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

TheRealFennShysa tell in his complaint that the article John E. Hudgens is about him. --Commator (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commator~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It was not an attempt to harass somebody. It was an attempt to discuss the possibility of adding the references to the article John E. Hudgens. One of them was "John Hudgens under the user name of one Wikipedian".

Decline reason:

From what I see, the wikilink you provided has that editor asking for you to be stopped, and does not confirm that he is that person; merely that you're trying to post possibly personal info. Let me put it this way: if you do anything like that again, you will be indef blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TheRealFennShysa (talk) had never participated in a discussion on the talk page of the article John E. Hudgens. He brutally destroyed my information without reasonable explanation. Moreover, he achieved through administrators of this blocking of my activity. In his complaint on my attempt to discuss supplementation of the article with information from publicly available sources, TheRealFennShysa (talk) absolutely clearly states that the article is about him. I am surprised that his reluctance to see even on the article's talk page his own publicly available information, led to a long block of my activity. Even more surprisingly, that Wikipedia has some dark articles which impossible even to discuss on clarification because of the threat to be blocked indefinitely. --Commator (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commator~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Previous decline reason is not convincing. Especially because of the threat of indef block.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, "I don't like the reason you gave" is not a reason to be unblocked. - Vianello (Talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commator~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

TheRealFennShysa (talk) in his complaint absolutely clearly states that the article John E. Hudgens is about him. I can't find a rule by which his reluctance to see on the article's talk page his own publicly available information, must lead to a long block of my activity. I also can't find a rule by which is possible threaten me by indef block.

Decline reason:

Whatever you personally believe, the block is correct and, in my view, lenient. Any similar behaviour will, as other admins have said, lead to a long-term block. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To clarify: I understand that you've been having an editing disagreement with User:TheRealFennShysa at 3D modeling. If you recall, I told you that the way to deal with that is to discuss it and come to an agreement, maturely. You responded by telling me your age, which I understood to mean that you were old enough to understand how to do that. Dealing with your editing disagreement by taking revenge on him by disrupting a different article is not going to solve your disagreement. It's childish, it disrupts the encyclopedia, and you are lucky to only be blocked for a week. You are complaining that you are being 'threatened' with an indefinite block- but you don't seem to understand that your behavior harms this project, and so, to keep you from doing more harm, you really will be indefinitely blocked the next time you deal with an editing disagreement by disrupting the encyclopedia. If you truly "can't find a rule by which it is possible to threaten' you with indefinite block, then you clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Harassment yet, even though it's the rule that resulted in this block, and three users have linked to it for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you recall, I told you that your persistent attempts to teach me are infertile. I also told you that my age is around 57 years old. To clarify: it means that some of my school friends have died already. Our generation is dying out, but its education was very good for understanding why the underwater part of iceberg much greater than overwater one. It's because the policy of double standards and open secrets is well known for us. From this point of view I appreciated you very much when read in TheRealFennShysa's complaint: <<... Could you handle this, as FisherQueen hasn't edited in a few days ...>>. Thank you for this. Now I think in future even the reading of Wikipedia may be for me unpleasant necessity. For me more than clear now that no any sence to spend the rests of my time for stupidities of WP editing. So threaten me by indefinitely blocking is the same infertile way as attempts to teach me. --Commator (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood you- I thought you meant that you are old enough to know how to work together with other people. Now I understand that what you're saying is that you are too old to learn to work together with other people. You are wrong- people are never too old to learn new skills. But I'll try to keep an eye on your contributions, and block you permanently the next time you show that you really can't work together with other people. I hope you find a hobby that is more pleasant than Wikipedia, if Wikipedia isn't fun for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems you really believe to catch and neutralize "enemy of the people" is what may improve the life in community. I may imagine how you proud by your performance of so important mission. Hope you will be lucky in your "witch-hunt". --Commator (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed several comments from this talk page. They appear to come from User:TheRealFennShysa, but he didn't put them on this talk page- you did. If that user wants to leave messages here on your talk page, I'm sure that he will do so. If he isn't leaving messages on your talk page, it isn't fair to make it appear that he is. Please, just leave him alone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be very kind of you, to cite so exact as possible quotes from the relevant rules, to justify your action. Without this, it is very similar to the rough arbitrariness. --Commator (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now, you are blocked for attempting to harass him. You appear to be continuing to harass him here on your own talk page. You don't need a link to WP:HARASS, the rule you are breaking, because you've already had several people link to it. Stop harassing him. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you are welcome to do so, politely, without harassing anyone. If you find that you disagree with someone, and you will, you are welcome to discuss it politely and seek consensus, then, when the consensus is clear, accept it even if you are on the losing side of the disagreement. You are blocked, right now, for harassment. Harassment on your own talk page is also not acceptable. Leave him alone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Enharmonic keyboard

Да, разумеется. Я практически ничего о предмете не знаю. В 2006-м я отредактировал статью только потому, что она нужна была для какой-то другой статьи, над которой я работал, а текущая версия была длиной в одно предложение. К сожалению, я не помню, откуда брал информацию; это было ещё до того, как на WP появилась серьёзная система контроля источников. Если что-то неверно, нужно безжалостно вытирать и заменять проверенной информацией. --Jashiin (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Enharmonic keyboard

Please don't cut the essential information (especially in a definitive top section of an article) before giving enough argumentation for such profound edits. Olorulus (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Commator. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Commator~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

11:43, 22 April 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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)