User talk:CtrlXctrlV

Welcome!

Hello, CtrlXctrlV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

A page you started (List of Formula One safety cars) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of Formula One safety cars, CtrlXctrlV!

Wikipedia editor Roches just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've linked back to this article over at Safety car. Right under the link in the F1 section there is a 'more sources needed' tag. If you think this list adds enough sources you can clear the tag at Safety car.

To reply, leave a comment on Roches's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Suggestion

Hi, You should try to install Twinkle as it would be easier to rollback edits. It should be a good idea for you. Kind Regards, --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have no clue what it is! But will have a read. Just added your HSV GTS in the Commodore VF article. Cheers :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Formula One safety cars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Formula One safety cars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One safety cars until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Safety Cars

I really don't think your criticism on the project is fair, even less so compairing them to the Spanish inquisition. You have directly referred to me as being part of "gang" in the deletion discussion, hence why I referred to that in my latest reply there. You keep acting like we want to eridicate all information on F1 Safety Cars from the entire Wikipedia, which is simply no true. As said time and time again, what is notable about them is included in Safety Car. What you have created is a simple list of every model and make ever used, which a considerable number of users think doesn't merit a standalone article due to its low encyplopedic value. As pointed out by others, for the last nineteen years it simply denotes which car Mercedes-Benz decided to promote. That fact that this fairly notable is proven in that no one else has published such a list. Note that editors from outside the project have also posted their reasoning in favour of deletion. There certainly is no WP:F1 gang wanting to eradicate is. Just good faith concerns that this is not encyclopedic. If you really want to add information on Safety Cars to Wikipedia, you easily work on the Safety Car article. There is certainly some room for expansion on the F1 section, concerning their history and working. Furthermore many more racing classes could be added. For instance, while the Indy 500 has a section, the related IndyCar series hasn't. T v x1 13:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this more neutral and constructive commentary - I respect your views but don't necessarily share them in every regard. In relation to safety cars, if there is "certainly some room for expansion on the F1 section" of that article, it is encouraging, but that is not what happened previously. Ditto with the deletion of a unique "Safety car" section per season article if you recall (though I have little issue with that particular outcome). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the article discussion, I would have no opposition to a simple table going into the Formula One section of the safety car article similar to the following:

Season	Model	Notes
Trials
1973	Porsche 914	Candian Grand Prix only
1980-1983	Lamborghini Countach	Monaco Grand Prix only
1992	Honda Integra	Canadian Grand Prix only
1992	Ford Escort RS Cosworth	British Grand Prix only
Official
1993	Fiat Tempra	Brazilian Grand Prix only

... while filling in the rest of the seasons.

It's not overly detailed, and it centralizes a list that doesn't necessarily warrant a standalone article. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list has already been present in the article and removed. That's what led to CtrlXctrlV creating the standalone article for it in the first place. In that article, it gives undue weight on the F1 section over the other motorsports' section. What's really more important for that article right now, is to include other forms of motor sports that are currently absent (e.g. IndyCar series). T v x1 07:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twirlypen, I had envisaged a table also as you suggest above but I am not a wizard like some of you guys and as Tvx1 correctly noted, it once did exist in Safety Car, although not as neatly presented as yours (it was a bulky dot point list). I have to use my "I am a novice" card again and say I am unsure of what steps there are now given the somewhat surprising deletion of List of Formula One safety cars. I will definitely ask for a review as I do not believe the reason was justified, relative to similar or worst lists floating around. Be that as it may, if either of you can aid discussions on inclusion of a table in Safety car (perhaps only from 1992/93, the "official era"), it would avoid us all going back to square one. Thanks in advance for any replies. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, Indy Car series is well accounted for with a list of pace cars at least in this article Indianapolis 500 pace cars. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. That only focusses on the pace cars used in the Indianapolis 500 races. Nothing is mentioned there (and it shouldn't be) about the pace cars used in the other races held as part of the IndyCar series and its predecessors. And that entire class of motorsport is absent from the Safety Car article all-together. Also, the deletion discussion wasn't closed in an inappropriate manner. AFD's generally run for seven days after which an uninvolved administrator comes by to assess the consensus. That 7 day mark had passed for this particular AFD and discussion had dried down. So their actions were not inappropriate at all.T v x1 16:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just told of the 7 day time limit by the administrator involved. And I also discovered that Indy's 2015 pace car for non Indy 500 event is a Honda Accord! This highlights the difference with F1, where a single purpose-built car is used instead of one for MB to just further promote in their showrooms. I am guessing you'd be opposed to a table in Safety Car?

I think my above reply to TwirlyPen's proposal should be clear. And you know, tools like AFD have a Manual. I looked up the workings of said process myself when I started getting involved in some. T v x1 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out a flaw in your understanding of safety cars both in Formula One and in List of Indianapolis 500 pace cars, since your discussion with Juliancolton was brought to my attention through a name drop. The current Mercedes-Benz safety cars are not purpose-built machines in that they are standard production models with additional interior elements and electrical systems to allow them to fulfill the task of safety car. They typically do not have any mechnical improvements as they tend to be capable enough to pace the field on their own, although I believe some suspension tweaks are made simply to deal with the added weight of the safety systems. What difference is there between a Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG and a Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Safety Car that makes the listing of the model relevant?

The IndyCar Series pace cars are not covered in any way, shape, or form by List of Indianapolis 500 pace cars. The IndyCar Series, through its various machinations, has never had a singular traveling safety car and has relied almost solely on a variety of cars that vary from race to race based on sponsorship programs. You may have seen a Honda Accord for one race, but I most certainly saw a Chevrolet Corvette Convertible for Pocono just a few days ago. Neither of which are the Chevrolet Corvette Z06 from the Indianapolis 500. I could probably rattle off half a dozen different cars that have served as pace cars in the series the last few years. The only thing that travels with the series is the pace car driver, who is an IndyCar employee akin to Bernd Maylander. This same method also applies to NASCAR, in which the pace car varies from race to race.

As for Indianapolis 500 pace cars themselves, that list exists because unlike Formula One pace cars, many of the Indianapolis 500 pace cars are purpose-built, as in they are generally one-off cars that are not mass-production models. See Pontiac Fiero#1984, the 2008 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 running E85 fuel, the Chevrolet Beretta convertible that was never sold as a convertible, the 1991 Dodge Vipers that were Chrysler's test mules, etc. There is also the fact that the pace cars have unique drivers, meaning there is some correlation to list besides simply makes and models. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my colleague's comments I would like to add that another reason why the Indianapolis 500 pace car carry more notability than F1 Safety Cars is that pace cars have been an inherent part of the Indy500 all the way back to 1911, whereas safety cars have only been a fixed part of Formula One since the mid-nineties. Before that they were a rare occurrence. You're clearly judging these vehicles' makes notability by how it appears to you with every new race you watch live now and are not taking the entire 69-year history of the sport into account. That's why treating F1 and the Indy500 on par regarding pace/safety cars would be giving undue weight on F1. T v x1 18:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello gang, thanks for the amusement provided by reading "name drop" and "colleague". It's good to see there's more to Wikipedia behind the scenes and, Tvx1, thanks for the AFD manual. I do not know how you asserted "as you know", but I did not know and do not know as much as you guys obviously do. Thanks The359 for your commentary on what makes Indy 500 cars different. You might have noticed my tune (actually, no tune, I have other things beyond spending time on Wiki) is not entirely reliant on that article, and I guess it will be even less so now. Having said that, I do believe a stand-alone F1 list may not have a place in Safety Car (because it covers other formulae) but it does a stand-alone list provided it does not violate any WP's, as the deleted one didn't. The existence of similar lists is something that I will continue to refer to, and perhaps it's best to continue this talk on the relevant pages, if/when they arise (I'm yet to catch up on my discussion with the deleter). Not that I mind your comments, which I appreciate as long as they are productive and respectful, as the ones above I consider. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as you insist on referring to other lists, you will continue undermining your own argument because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. T v x1 11:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo Giulia (952)

Dont add wrong information to article, there is no 2 L engine published for Europe, and because this is European car we use PS not hp, and there is differecne in outputs they are not same for Europe and US. Also dont remove stuff from article -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932 It's you removing additional and reliable information that is fully referenced, just because you prefer your version. Your LA Auto Show was unreferenced. The engine range is the same, and you may invest your time looking this up (start with Italian news resources); the engine and performance differences are because of different standards (DIN v SAE) and same applies to acceleration (0-100km/h takes longer than 0-60mph). I've added back North American debut only because it is there that the global 2.0 engine was announced. The model name has not being revealed, so you are wrong anyway to list it was a "2.0 MultiAir" (when it actually runs a MultiAir2 system). I will rely on this reply and the basis for my edits, enhancing or correcting yours, if you persist with this edit war. Enjoy your day. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LA was not unreferenced, we have conversion termplates and those PS and hp doesnt match, we dont know if USA engines are same as in Europe. Dont add that that data again, until you have proof they are same, leave the article as it was until we have real information, you cant make your own conclusions we need proofs and you edits dont have such, you made your conclusion that engine specifications are same in USA and Europe. -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont add that wrong info unless you have references, DIN is obsolete unit in Europe, USA FCA website doesnt say 280 PS nowhere etc. find sources before adding that data again. All you edits are your own conclusions without any proofs. 1st you say converting from hp to PS is wrong due to sae/din now you convert urself hp to PS... pls find sources 1st before adding engine data back -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932 your mass reverts are prejudicing the validity and integrity of the article. PLEASE REFRAIN. If you have anything to say, say it on the talk pages given how unreasonable and obtuse you're being. Let me just repeat this: (a) US engines are from the SAME global engine range, the power is different because the US uses and quotes "SAE" and Europe uses "CE" (see these publications! US [1] vs EU [2] once and for all!); (b) there is a reference for the 2.0 Turbo petrol engine output, SO CHECK before you complain. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the reference for 2. 0 turbo engine? you added in afterwards. You should say in talk pages why you are changing pages without any valid references or why you are removing referenced info. My reverts were made correctly, you are editing pages by making your own conclusion (original research) and removing referenced info. Pls dont do that in the future, you have made so much errors in page editing that I suggest you to read some Wikipedia help pages for editing help, if you are unsure use talk pages before making wrong edits or data removing and use always references BEFORE you add data, not afterwards like you do in this article. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the 2.0 Turbo petrol engine was and is footnote 20 here [3]. It was accidentally lost thanks to your reverts and ended up being associated with the US press release, which has no information. But now there is - I suggest you use Google Translate since I assume you do not speak Italian and even your English is a bit weak, Typ932. No need for me to peruse the Help pages - I suggest you familiarise yourself with the concept of "edit war", but I see on your Talk page that others have complained to you about that in other cases. Your references have not been deleted, except for the completely unnecessary separate engine range for the USA. Again, see above and reference for difference between CE and SAE data. Your full reverts are the ones causing problems and inappropriate. Now there is reference to "CE" and "SAE" and you have no basis to argue to the contrary. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOl accidentally lost, give me a break, there was never any reference to that data, dont try to explain your errors, ill suggest you learn some wikipedia rules before editing more, it was your error not mine ; I just reverted your wrong unreferenced data and put some data back you had removed , next time think before you edit articles -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look at the reference for 0-100kmh and then feel free to apologise :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design team leader is not the designer, you changed again referenced data -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932 look from the Alfa Romeo 75 onwards then, does it need to be changed since they quote the Head designer like I have here? Italian and world media interview and credit Tencone and his team though, as per my additional references. I think what you missed from the Italian article you quote is that (1) it is a small regional publication, definitely not an authoritative automotive publication like Quattroruote that I referenced instead (2) that being the case, it's biased because the tone of the article is all about exaggerating the fact that Senior Designer is from the same region of Italy as the publication. Please WATCH the Quattroruote video if you haven't [4], it's also subtitled in English and consider that the wiki link to designer is not about the individual "exterior designer" but the art of it and teams, making my reference more correct (actually, designer should just read: Centro Stile Alfa Romeo, as is the case on other Alfa articles where they quote the Giugiaro, IDEA, Pininfarina "groups" only). In saying that, this issue isn't a major one, especially leaving the added paragraph in the article, which lists the key Giulia design team members anyway, so do as you please if you feel strongly about it! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Alfa Romeo Giulia (952) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CtrlXctrlV reported by User:Angry Bald English Villian Man (Result: ). Thank you. Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 10:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Bald English Villian Man, your report was a bit of a mess. I've declined it as CtrlXctrlV has not reverted since being warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN. I accept your warning and trust that the instigator, Typ932, will equally be warned and monitored. I tried, via Talk and Project pages, but that hasn't worked. When I reported the issue (sorry that it was on the wrong noticeboard), I was conscious my many edits could put me under the spotlight. So be it. Those edits were just to close all loops to the senseless reverts and to further enhance the article with additional material and references. By contrast, Typ932 just does a bulk reversion to bring it back to how he prefers it. I look forward to equal treatment. Cheers CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932 was already warned by you but yes, I expect both of you to stop reverting and start discussing with Typ932 responding to your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Falcon

Hey mate just writing bout you deleting my change, I own a set of 4V Closed Chamber 351 Cleveland Heads, with a casting date of the 6th of April 1970, and they bear the Geelong Foundry casting mark so I would say that they produced them here in early 1970 wouldn't you? DiggerWalters (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diggerwalters, I don't think personal knowledge is enough. Anyway, many online sources say mid-1972 for Australian versions - see this for example [5] or this [6]. If you have an external source you can refer to, go ahead and change back :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GM Zeta platform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedan. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Holden Commodore, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... not the first time lately. Early dimentia? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian large car sales graph

I came across the discussion at File talk:Australian large car sales 1991 onwards.png and created a wiki markup version of the graph using Template:Line chart. Looking to see if others are happy to switch from the image to the wiki markup, which will be placed in its own template. Thanks. – Ky ta bu 00:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitsubishi Magna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAAB. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holden Commodore (VT), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castor. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and the mass thanks!~

Heyo sorry about the mass thanks. I had to do it.

Winterysteppe (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winterysteppe, it was your idea and a good one, so thanks to you too :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is your final warning regarding unconstructive edits to Mitsubishi Magna. If you continue to add contentious material without engaging in discussion first, I will be left no option but to report you to administrators. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a courtesy note that as I suspect you are a sockpuppet of MundusEditus, I have initiated a case against you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MundusEditus. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSX, thanks my accomplice! Response provided :) By the way, reason for deleting my warnings to you? Cowardice or liking to keep your Talk Page squeaky clean? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Admission of guilt just makes the admin's job so much easier. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between having balls, and not OSX. Don't get excited please and thanks for not answering my valid question. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it has more to do with your blatant disregard for policy and refusing to uphold previous consensus. No one wants to put up with your disruptive editing style anymore. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it OX considers the page to be his "baby". Winterysteppe (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winterysteppe the whole of Wiki actually, especially when it comes to car pictures! Watch out ;) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holden Commodore (VT), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplex. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

I have a front row seat to the sock puppet investigation and that is entertaining to say the least. Don't worry you will be fine. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CtrlXctrlV reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. T v x1 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CtrlXctrlV. 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)[reply]