User talk:Fklatt

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Fklatt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! --Nehwyn 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia standards

Please note that we never change an article title by copy-and-pasting, we always use a move command.

Please explain why you consider that your electric machine articles should have capitals in them - such as Doubly-Fed Electric Machines. -- RHaworth 12:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to the wiki style. Hopefully, this will not happen again.

This is one category or family of Electric Machines (Electric Machines are electro-mechanical converters, which is an electric motor or electric generator). Therefore, I capitalized because it is the subject. If this is incorrect please make comment. By the way, I hope I am responding properly through this portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fklatt (talk • contribs)

This is not a "portal", it is a user talk page. But yes, you are correct to respond here. However:

Convention is that you sign all comments with ~~~~
Having said this will not happen again, I am very disappointed to see you create Singly-Fed Electric Machine a couple of hours later. These are not trade names / proper names so they are not capitalised. -- RHaworth 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Haworth, I am not an expert at wiki style, nor am I a grammar expert: so please don't apologize but instead accept my apology. I capitalized Singly-fed and Doubly-fed because each define a unique electric machine circuit topology and as a result, I assumed they are proper names; however, these terms are never capitalized in published technical articles. As a result, I will change to lower case.

Evaluating Electric Motor Technology

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Evaluating Electric Motor Technology, by Wtshymanski (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Evaluating Electric Motor Technology fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

an essay, advice column

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Evaluating Electric Motor Technology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Conflict of Interest

Please do not introduce links to your company:

Frederick William Klatt Best Electric Machine fred.klatt@BestElectricMachine.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Synchronous motor, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to 3D printing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Dingley: Sorry for your concern regarding my recent entry for 3d Printing of electric motors and generators. I was only following the United Technologies example. However, after your comment, I understand the conflict. Instead, I would like to put the following into the section, "MotorPrinter is being used to manufacture the only brushless wound-rotor [synchronous] doubly-fed electric machine system known as Synchro-Sym to provide a range of electric motor and generator systems without RE-PM and with cost performance as never before seen" of course with links to "motorprinter", wound rotor doubly fed [Wikipedia], etc.

Is this okay? I am new to at least responding to users, so your response will let me know that I am doing at least this correctly.

Best Regards, Fred Klatt

The subject "Brushless wound-rotor doubly-fed electric machine" has numerous IEEE transactions references added but because of the number of references with article location tags, I placed the link to these references through the Best Electric Machine portal. I believe the portals are purely technical pages of Best Electric Machine. Please take the opportunity to review these articles and if satisfied, please remove the Wikipedia challenge or please give me instructions to remedy the situation. Best Regards, Fred Klatt

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Doubly fed electric machine, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Doubly fed electric machine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 3D printing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 3D printing (diff), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also per WP:NOTADVERTISING Wikipedia should it be used for advertising or promotion, especially material about a company, Best Electric Machine, that you are associated with[1]. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have continued to edit without comment adding material promoting a company you are associated with, Best Electric Machine[2]. Please note such editing is considered disruptive editing and can lead to your account being blocked. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations

Fklatt, this situation is going downhill fast, and if things continue this way it can only end with you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I would like to help you to turn that around, because we need more editors with engineering/technical skills.

What I would advise is that you take some time to read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations and then make a commitment to follow those best practices. If you do that, I and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to help you make sure that the products you are associated with get accurate and encyclopedic coverage according to Wikipedia' rules. Would you be willing to make that commitment?

You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second Guy Macon's suggestion. Continuing to add the same edit over and over again is not constructive and can be construed as WP:NOTHERE behavior. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again.[3] Filing ANI report now. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fklatt adding promotional material. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest, terms of use, in Wikipedia

Hi Fred. I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia, and holy cow, Fred. You have edited directly about your company and your patents, and as far as I can see you have paid no mind to conflict of interest here in Wikipedia. I am providing you with notice Wikipedia'a COI guideline and terms of use, and will have some comments and requests for you below. Please do read this carefully.

Hello, Fklatt. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments/requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. I really hope you can understand that. If every company used Wikipedia to promote itself (in violation of our policy against promotion) this place would be a garbage dump and nobody would come read it. Right? So it is important that we manage COI.

The thing about COI is that it causes bias and that leads to content that fails our WP:NPOV policy. People with a COI tend to write crappy content, because they cannot see what they are actually doing (they always say they can; they are pretty much always wrong) If you don't believe me, I can show you diffs of people being unbelievably blind to themselves. Really.

You are clearly a EE expert. Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges here - especially when they come here to write about their companies. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin. You are a published scientific author, so you are surely familiar with the concept of COI from your real world work, but COI has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, due to the instant nature of publishing here. You make an edit, you save it, and you are published - no intervening publisher, no peer review.

So... as in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

Disclosure first. You are editing under your real name. And you clearly work for BEM. This actually makes you what we call a "paid editor" and you have been editing in violation of the Terms of Use here. That is a serious thing, Fred.

You can fix this. The first thing is to make your COI disclosure complete by adding something like the following to your Userpage -- User:Fklatt:

I work for Best Electric Machine which makes motors and other devices related to electric vehicles, the grid, 3-D printing, etc. Here is a list of articles I have directly edited in the past that are related to BEM's businesses:
3D printing

Doubly fed electric machine

Singly fed electric machine

Smart grid

Synchronous motor

List of traction motor manufacturers

Electric machine

Electric motor

AC motor

Brushless electric motor

Superconducting electric machine

DC motor

Brushed DC electric motor

Permanent magnet synchronous generator

Wind turbine

Something like that. That would take care of the disclosure part. Would you please add that, or something like it, to your user page? Thanks.

The other step is peer review. We ask editors who have a COI to refrain from directly editing content where they have a COI, but rather, propose content at the relevant article's Talk page. You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the bottom of the beige box at the top of the Talk pages where you have a COI - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. What that does, is it gives everybody a chance to review the content to make sure it is NPOV and well-sourced. No drama.

Another way we do peer review, is that we ask editors who create articles, who have a COI with regard to topics in the article, to a) put the article through the WP:AFC process instead of creating them directly (AfC is very clearly a peer review process) and b) to disclose their COI so that the reviewers are aware of it, while reviewing.

Also, we prefer if editors refrain from citing their own work here - it is a big temptation, we know, but again that becomes a form of self-promotion. Please see WP:SELFCITE about that.

Will you please agree to do those three peer review steps going forward?

Please do answer those two questions I have bolded. You can reply here, and you if you have any questions or want to discuss anything you can reply with those too - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:3D printing#Conflict of interest editing. It looks like he is now making a good-faith effort to follow our COI rules, but he is still treating Wikipedia like some website where you do X, Y and Z and your edit gets published. I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to engage us in a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Macon, I am confused, do you want me to start a dialogue with you? I assume this is the way to do it. I'd prefer a telephone or e-mail conversation that is more user user friendly for me. I am not confident about my communication Wikipedia style. Best Regards,Fklatt (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you have a problemt with 'communication Wikipedia style'. I believe that you do not (or do not want to) grasp the fact that Wikipedia is not for advertising yourself, your company, or your company's products or technology. Confict of Interest is easy to understand: you do not edit or create topics you are closely involved with where your editing is not neutral and/or can be viewed as being promotional. Even though you have been aound on Wikipedia for a very long time, your failure to apparently understand these issues will unfotunately eventually lead to you being blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what Kudpung wrote above (which I agree with), communicating "Wikipedia style" is not optional. Either you learn how to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community (which includes answering reasonable questions you are asked), or you get blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers are misguided. I said I understand your COI concerns (as I always did) but I do not understand (unfamiliar with) the formalities (mechanism) of navigating the Wikipedia blog process. Your zealotry made you think I was poopoo you and totally missed my point. But that's my fault. Now, please undo the removal of 3D Printing of "electric motors and generators" (without the United Techologies blurb, although unlike you, I as a pioneer found their information technically useful). Like the automobiles, apparel, etc. topics in this section, 3d printing of electric motors and generators have a particular unusual characteristic, which is hostile to 3d Printing and needs technical comment (which is why Wikipedia excels beyond all others). By the way until commercially popular, new technology is done by a few pioneers and they (and their efforts) should be conveniently mentioned in wiki. This is not marketing but Wikipedia "promotional" knowledge (why do you think researchers in particular use wikipeida): otherwise, researchers could go to other encyclopedias that only talk about the past, poopoo). If you don't understand this, then Wikipedia will be doomed by your ignorance. I added lots of important (non-commercial but technically "promotional") info to Wikipedia, which now has a diverse technical following beyond the few in the past (but you will not find this in other encyclopedia). Block me if you wish but with the course you are taking, you will eventually have to block all your pioneering contributors. Please get off of your collectivist bandwagon and think "promotional" innovation for all our sakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fklatt (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Fred, quick note. Part of the etiquette of Wikipedia - as basic here as "please" and "thank you" - is signing your posts, and indenting them so that comments are threaded. To indent one "tab", put one colon : at the beginning of your post; in order to indent two tabs, put two colons at the start of your post, etc. The Wikipedia software converts each colon into a tab. This threads comments so that it is clear to whom you are responding. To "sign" your posts, type exactly four tildas ~~~~ at the end of your post. The Wikipedia sofware turns the four tildas into links to your user page and talk page and adds a date stamp - this doesn't work if you type three or five tildas - it needs to be exactly four. Please indent and sign your posts going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred -- responding to the substance of what you wrote above, please read the important policy document, What Wikipedia is not - this is both a policy and a pillar of Wikipedia, and it describes what Wikipedia is, and really importantly, spends a lot of time discussing what it is not. A lot of people come here thinking Wikipedia is something that it is not- hence the title of the document What Wikipedia is, is an encyclopedia full of articles, each of which is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. "Accepted knowledge." So we don't do "cutting edge" here. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place for hot cutting edge science/technology news; it is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; it is not a publisher of original thought, nor is it a vehicle for promotion. It is very much "in the box." I hope you can see that. Like we have all written, WP loves experts and I for one hope you can get oriented to WP's mission. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I understand completely and will follow Wikipedia rules. After your friendly explanation, I am embarrassed to say that it was me that became the ranter and the zealot of which I just talked about. Please forgive me.Fklatt (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I do have an important request. Could you please revert the "3d Printing->industrial applications" back to the subject with "electric motors and generators." Like the apparel, automobiles, aircraft, etc. topics, electric motors and generators have peculiar structure and materials that are hostile to traditional 3d printing, which is Wikipedia knowledge. You may or may not choose to revert the United Technologies' paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia's etiquette; however, if you also revert the United Techologies' paragraph then Wikipedia should allow competitive information about others doing research (and their method) in this area.Fklatt (talk) 00:05, 7 July 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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Best Electric Machine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Best Electric Machine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Norvoid (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Best electric machine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Best electric machine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Best electric machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worldwide. 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) 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Best Electric Machine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Best Electric Machine, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doubly fed electric machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armature. 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) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much your last warning

You have come back and continued to directly edit articles about your company's products. Please take the following seriously - the next time you do this I will seek to have you banned from Wikipedia for abusing it per WP:PROMO. You must stop directly adding content to Wikipedia about your company's products. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one of the article pioneers on doubly-fed electric machine for Wikipedia with over 30 years of experience. Now, I am pretty disappointed in Wikipedia. Technical ignorance in this area (electric machines) by your editors is overwhelming. Everything I have given Wikipedia is pertinent technical information. My information (or others) has never been advertisement, except to some wikipedia editors who still think the world is flat (and will not seek technical expertise to understand the subject matter that they are lacking). If you ban me, please return my donation or is wiki editors those that accept donations under false premises! It is pretty obvious the subjectivity when editors use pseudonyms instead of real names (as I do). Fklatt (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We love experts here, but not when they add unsourced content or use Wikipedia to promote their own businesses. You are doing both. Please stop. And I will repeat, if you keep doing those things, you are going to end up banned from this topic. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fklatt. 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]