User talk:J.s.071991

Important information for my talk page

Welcome to my talk page. You are more than welcome to ask me anything you would like. Please just follow a few formatting rules to keep my sanity in tact so all of your questions and replies don't become confusing for me!:-

1. If you are asking me something for the first time, or something that is on a different topic to what you've previously asked me about, please create a new section. Please do not add your question/comments to someone else's section.

2. If you create a new section, please give it a simple title such as "Feedback Request: (name of your page)" or "Comments: (name of page)" so I can keep track of everything.

3. If you are replying to what I wrote, please write it beneath my comments in the same section as your original question.

4. If you are asking for feedback on a particular page of yours I edited or declined, please post a link to that page with your questions/comments.

6. Please sign off all your posts with four tildes ('~ ~ ~ ~') (without the spaces between them though) to automatically insert your name and the date.

Thank you, and happy wiki-ing!

Wikipedia tips

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

Feedback request: Fourquest Energy

Hey, I am writing you to ask for help in getting my submission posted on wikipedia. You rejected it stating that it read like an advertisement. If you could provide further details on which parts you felt that way. I have modeled my article after other similar companies that are currently on wikipedia, so I am having a hard time understanding how else to write it. My article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FourQuest_Energy

SeanToro (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Sean[reply]

Hi Sean, Thanks for asking for clarification! Since you're article is about an energy company, I'd first suggest to take a look at an Australian example: Origin Energy, whose page, though slightly longer, is more encyclopaedic.

Like what I wrote below for another person, your article tends to read like a corporate 'about us' page or as if you were trying to sell the company. This doesn't conform to Wikipedia's standards and so I had to reject it.

For example, consider your sentences ... noticed that something crucial was missing: a company whose true specialty and core business was mechanical pre-commissioning. Although they had a humble beginning—with staff of just seven—their intuition proved accurate. There are better ways to right this so it does't sound like an advertisement for the company.

You could have written, for example, Before FourQuest's foundation there was no Albertan oilfield company which specialised in mechanical pre-commissioning. FourQuest was incorporated in 2007 and began operations with 7 staff before expanding to multiple Canadian locations, the Middle East, and the Caspian region in 2008. By 2012 the company employed over 200 people after experiencing more than a 100% growth rate each each year since its foundation.

Note here that I've rewritten parts of what you put in your history section to remove the adjectives which add nothing to the facts you are trying to say. Also try to consider adding more sections to your article to establish why FourQuest is a notable company. If I can help any more please let me know :)

Cheers, John Smith.

Feedback request: Eli Sokhn

Hello my name is Nadine, and I was hoping you could help me on this issue. You recently rejected my article saying "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability", I am majoring in media and political science and my aim is to bring to the public the most accurate information about people who are socially active and making a social change and yet are unknown or not covered as much by the media. could you give me more information on how to update the article? maybe remove some info? but I am very confident that with your help I'll make this a better article.

Thank you so much!

Filmwikieditor (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nadine,

Thanks for asking for some clarification on why your article was rejected since the subject is non-notable.

Firstly, have a read of this page which sets out the requirements for an article to be created about a living person who is a film maker. If he/she doesn't meet these criteria there is a presumption that person is non-notable. Unfortunately your article doesn't say why Eli Sokhn meets these guidelines and I can't see anything in your article which might otherwise make him notable either.

I think too that your sentence that your mission is to provide 'most accurate information about people who are socially active and making a social change and yet are unknown or not covered as much by the media.' sums up the position best as to why I had to decline your article at this point- just because something can be published, doesn't mean it should be. Wikipedia requires a level of notability to publish an article on a person that hasn't yet been met here. Also keep in mind that if they are still unknown or not well covered by the media then the article can't be cross checked with independent, reliable sources (such as newspapers).

So my advice is that unless you can establish why your film maker is notable within 1 of those 4 criteria listed on the page I linked to above, your article will have to keep being denied by editors and approvers.

Alternately, if one of his projects has a Wikipedia page that meets those notability guidelines perhaps you could consider adding in a small section about him on that page.

I hope this helps a bit. Good luck looking for more information to make him notable! Can I clarify anything further for you? :) J.s.071991 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: HolidayCheckAG

Hello, I was hoping you could help me. You recently rejected my article, saying it appears like an advertisement. Could you give me some feedback as to which sections specifically need improvement, because I cannot find which part you are concerned about. I am aware of the criteria for an article to be accepted but cannot find the problem. I would be very grateful if you could help me.

Thank you.

A.brinkter (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for asking for clarification! :) I'd be more than happy to point out a few things because you have a potentially acceptable article if it was slightly edited. There are a few minor grammatical/tense errors (for example: In 2005, the company receives the overall ... Since 2005 is in the past, it's better to say 'received'), or forgetting a few full stops (periods) but more specifically to your point:

1. You've used, for example, phrases like the 'leading German-speaking holiday review platform', which makes it sound like an advertisment. Why is it the leading website? Does it have the highest revenue stream? It it perhaps the most popular? Phrases such as 'is the leading ______' is suitable in advertisements but is not specific enough- so try to change that.

2. Your paragraph such as 'The idea for HolidayCheck was conceived in 1999 and came from Marcus Schott. In pursuit of honest information – as opposed to hotel brochures – for a trip to the Caribbean, Schott found a private Canadian webpage offering personal reviews. The group of students founded the website www.Hotelbewertungen.de on January 1st, 2000 and collected reviews from friends and family, which found little resonance initially.' sounds like a corporate backstory rather than an encyclopaedic article written from a neutral point of view. For example, try not to embellish sentences by saying that a particular person was looking for 'honest' information, or that things 'found little resonance initially'- if it wasn't initially popular, try to say why

3. 'The website’s breakthrough came in 2003, when the German television broadcaster RTL showed a feature of its services, calling it 'extremely helpful to holidaymakers'. In the same year, the company was officially founded as HolidayCheck AG, a joint stock company. More than 100,000 users were visiting the webpage daily by September 2003.'- again sounds like a corporate backstory.

4. Also, rename 'weblinks' to 'external links', fix your first reference (it hasn't been coded correctly) and see if you can eliminate the 'description' section by including the information in the first paragraph (where you have repeated some information like the corporate headquarters location)

Mostly it's just phrasing/wording issues which sound like something you'd find on an 'about us' page of a website- and needs to be rewritten to a neutral and verifiable point of view before being accepted. Can I help with anything else? J.s.071991 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you SO much for your help! I implemented as much as I could of your suggestions and will now send the article off again. Thank you! (A.brinkter (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Feedback request: Enhanced Integrated Framework

Dear John Smith, You reviewed my article on 8 August and declined its creation because I used too many sources from the organization that the article is about. I subsequently changed the references and used articles and books about that organization instead. This is my first article submission and I thought this might respond to your comment. However, I have seen that you have again declined the article 3 days ago. I would be grateful if you could let know why it was again declined and may be help me to address the article's weaknesses. As I said, this is my first article and I am thankful for any kind of help to make it meet the Wikipedia quality standards. Best regards, Karl Magnus (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl,

There must be a bug in the system because I didn't decline your article again three days ago- just the once on August 8- so I'm not sure what's going on there.

Well done on going over your article to add in more independent and reliable sources- though watch out as it may be again declined as all 6 of your references are in the first two sections with nothing in the next three- are there any newspaper/online newspaper articles perhaps to support your information there?

Good luck, and again thank you for taking on my feedback rather than giving up! :)

J.s.071991 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Physical Identity and Access Management

Hi,

My article submission on Wikipedia titled 'Physical Identity and Access Management (PIAM)' has been rejected saying: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

I'd really appreciate if you could help me by letting me know little bit in detail that what extra do I need to provide.

Thanks PIAM Security (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)PIAM_Security[reply]

Hi PIAM Security,

For an article of that size, more than 2 references are needed before the article can be accepted. Try to have one or to references per paragraph to support your statements. For example,

1. You wrote Although still not as mature as logical Identity and Access Management, PIAM is getting lot of traction in the market and PIAM deployments are increasing due to compliance mandates and a greater desire to manage physical access for identities like employees, visitors and contractors- is there an outside source that says PIAM isn't as mature as logical identity and access management? Can we verify that PIAM is getting traction in the market from a reliable source?

2.Perhaps your opening paragraph should have referenced a page which describes what PIAM is; if you're looking for a good place to start :)

Bear in mind the sources you do add need to be independent of the subject matter- i.e. don't use references with links to the PIAM corporate website (if any)- try for tech news articles, journals, etc.

Thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia! :) J.s.071991 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.s.071991,

Thanks again for your inputs. I have added few more references from where I have used the data in this article. I'd also like to tell you that the Gartner report which I have mentioned here is not available freely on the internet but the link for the same has been mentioned here. Some of the references have been used from that report.

Thanks, PIAM Security (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)PIAM_Security — Preceding unsigned comment added by PIAM Security (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.s.071991,

Waiting for your approval.

Thanks, 27.7.40.157 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)PIAM_Security[reply]

Hi PIAM Security,

You need to re-submit your article for review as you did when you first created it; it will be placed in the queue for review again. Just so you know, when you do this any reviewer could look at it, not just myself.

Cheers, J.s.071991 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)

MansourJE (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Hello and I hope you are fine. I chaneged my article "Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)" and I wrote it in Wikipedian manner. Please reconsider and add it to Wikipedia's wrticles.[reply]

Hi MansourJE, You still need to do a few things before your article can be considered for approval:

1. Link words in your article to other Wikipedia pages of the same name by putting 2 square brackets around the word (for example, [ [multiple sclerosis] ] - but remove the space from the brackets so it looks like this- multiple sclerosis.

2. Make sure the references you use are inserted into the text itself. Look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for tips.

3. Alternately, consider putting the information as a new section on the multiple sclerosis page itself.

4. Make sure you have reliable references. Referencing about.com or wikipedia itself is not reliable.

Cheers, J.s.071991 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Folks (band)

Your notes on my article were: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I read the notability of music-related topics and this band does meet the criteria for musicians #12 ("Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.") They were featured on BBC Radio 2, one of England's national radio stations, they were live on the radio for 20 minutes. They are not just some small band, their music is on iTunes/Amazon and they open for big acts. I've seen many articles that were accepted on Wikipedia for smaller bands that don't have any references. Once their album comes out in about a month there will be a lot more references, but don't you think right now that covering point #12 is sufficient? Thanks.

my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Folks_(band)

Nuke126 (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nuke,

Thanks for asking for more information, it's article creators like you that ensures Wikipedia continues to grow! About your article specifically there are a few thing's I'll mention.

1. As a general rule, it is hard to establish that a musical group is notable when they haven't yet released their first album. When articles are created about upcoming content then the article is usually declined on the basis of being self-promotion, especially since their creation, or even if created, notability, is not assured. See:WP:NOTADVERTISING. Having had a single released on iTunes for a month (since July 15) is unlikely to be notable unless that single is highly downloaded, perhaps within the top 10? Plenty of up-and-coming bands have released singles on iTunes and claim to have an album in the works, that by itself is not really a notable claim worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

2. When it comes to criteria #12 of Wikipedia:MUSIC, I also had to keep in mind a few things. When thinking about what a substantial broadcast segment across national radio or tv means, I'm more inclined to think it would be more than a 20 minute section (2 songs + interview) on a radio show that had a fill-in host for the day. Plenty of bands worldwide go on radio for 20 minutes but this by itself does not constitute a substantial broadcast segment. Without limiting my point, perhaps a longer segment (maybe an hour?) in prime time would be more suited to being considered substantial.

3. Also consider the fact that the lack of a clear demonstration of at least 1 of the 12 criteria for musicians leads to an inference that the Folks aren't yet notable. I'd also point you to this paragraph on the top of the WP:MUSIC page: Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article .... Especially given the scarce amount of information in your article so far, I had to decline your article because I can't see the notability aspect being clearly met here.

4. I also thought about what you said about having their music on iTunes or Amazon. Many bands and other musicians have music available for sale on iTunes or Amazon, that in itself is not notable. Perhaps some sales data from those websites, which prove they have a large volume of downloads/sales, would help you prove why this band is more remarkable than the thousands of others with their music for sale that don't have a Wikipedia page. Remember too that in your article it says that the Folks have only got one single and have only been on iTunes for one month; unless they are topping the charts I don't think notability is established here.

5. The same goes for your claim about opening for big acts. In your article you've mentioned they toured with, not opened for, Miles Kane and Noel Gallagher and claimed they performed at 'their biggest venues yet' (that seems like self-promotion by the way, can you please write in what these big venues were?). Are these the only big acts they have opened for? This, I suppose, also leads back to my first point- Noel Gallagher was the fill in host for the radio station they performed on- this, objectively speaking, seems like he put people he knows on the radio for 20 minutes; rather than the Folks having been selected on the merit or pure strength of their music- unless you could show some evidence to the contrary? I'd suggest improving your article to say what relationship the Folk have with these big acts you say they open for.

6. I understand there are a lot of bands on Wikipedia with small, unreferenced articles; however this isn't a reason why your particular article should be created (see WP:OTHERSTUFF, but is instead really a reason why those other articles should be deleted.

I understand that the Folks may become more notable once their album is released, but right now I'm having trouble being convinced, on the basis of what you wrote in the article, as to why they are notable. It's a mix of all the above factors, not any single one, which meant I declined your article. Having said that, if you wrote in for the article as to establish notability, other reviewers and myself would be more than obliging to create it. This may be something you just have to wait a few months for to see if the release of the album makes them truly notable.

Hope this helps. By the way, thank you very much for creating a new section with the right information and links in it for your question! If you want to know more, please let me know. Cheers. J.s.071991 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Model wearing wiffle gag.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Model wearing wiffle gag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admr Boltz 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Khachatur Sukiasyan

Hi, you declined my article submission for: Submission was declined. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khachatur Sukiasyan - This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.

Please, help me, as I need to know what should I do so that it was not declined, what is the problem with it? The information can be verified from the Referances I've added. I want to submit this article , I am sure the information provided is authentic. Could you give me more information on how to update the article? Thank you. Hasina10 (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You need more references from non-government sources and preferably you'd do the referencing in-text using the footnote feature so we can tell what information in your article comes from where. J.s.071991 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Understanding - FAR Part 117

J.s.071991 - Thank you for your time in reviewing proposed article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Understanding_-_FAR_Part_117

My intent was to educate the reader ( pilots ) as to how the regulation is actually interpreted by the FAA. Given that this is a new regulation, I thought that it would be very helpful. I attempted to explain various concepts used to validate the provisions.

If this article should be in another section of wikipedia ( a sister section ), it would be greatly appreciated if you could suggest any.

Again, Thanks for your time and effort. Garret Healy

J.s.071991 - you should also see that the article I provided clarifies the following EXISTING wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_%28safety%29

Garret.healy (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Garret.healy (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your article would be better if it outlined the whole regulation and was thus an article on the whole regulation, its history, purpose and intent (as well as its interpretation). Wikipedia is not really the place to write exhaustive pages on how to interpret regulations- you won't find such detailed instructions on how to read the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for example. Try to give an overall picture of the regulation rather than an article on regulation interpretation. J.s.071991 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Vonner wiki entry

I'm looking for more clarification as to why the David Vonner wiki entry was removed. The entry meets all of the criteria. Please explain. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvontu (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, without a link to the page I can't do more I'm afraid. J.s.071991 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article for John Calman Shaw

Hi,

Many thanks for reviewing my recent submission for John Calman Shaw. Unfortunately, owing to the gentlemans age, there are very few sources of information on his career other than those already cited. I quite agree that he deserves to have his achievements contextualised. I will most probably have to wait for his obituary to be published. Would it be possible in this instance for you to create his article and for me to up date it at a later date. I am in the process of updating my old schools Alumni and believe that he definitely warrants an article as with all the other Governors of the Bank of Scotland. Could you please reconsider your decision. Many thanks for your time.

Gomach (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It is not possible to approve the article without improvements and references being already placed in the article- perhaps its better to wait until his obituary is published, update it, resubmit it for approval and it may be duly created. Thanks for running your idea by me though. Cheers J.s.071991 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Calman Shaw.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Calman Shaw.

Apologies I forgot to include a link to the page.

Gomach (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Calman Shaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Calman_Shaw

Get there eventually! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomach (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On creation /Rikio Sugano

Thank you for auditing Rikio Sugano. Unfortunately, the reliable source is limited, or practically only one as described in the article of Rikio Sugano. I will try to find newspapers of his days, although they might contain his big mouth. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: The Hibernian Jungle

Thanks for reviewing my request (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Hibernian_Jungle). I've read your response to the Folks article for creation and that's helped me write the following. The Irish band I have written about have toured India twice, performing in one of the biggest radio stations in India on a 30 minute segment. NME (the biggest music magazine in the world) described them as "a representation of some of the finest musical talent in Ireland." I understand that the debut album is yet to release but aren't the included sources proof that the band is a notable subject? Any thoughts or suggestions are very welcome and of course, thank you again for the review.

Michaeloc84 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Many bands are fine representations of a particular style of music. Even though they have had a radio spot in India, this in itself doesn't make the band notable. This is compounded by the lack of an album. Notability isn't established by a warmly recieved radio spot or being described as good; further aclaim and high album sales would have a better chance of establishing notability.

Thanks for you interest! :) J.s.071991 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Weldon Myrick

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Weldon Myrick.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Alain Dormoy (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. Following the rejection of my new article I'd like to draw your attention to a few facts. Then if you confirm your rejection, I'll consider I have learned something about the Wiki new article policy and it will guide me when I have new ideas for articles.

The Encyclopedia of Country Music, published by Oxford University Press in 2012, compiled by the staff of the Country Music Hall Of Fame and Museum in Nashville deemed Myrick worthy of appearing in an encyclopedia. In its entry "Pedal Steel Guitar", it mentions him among the most important pedal steel guitar players since the instrument was invented. He toured - not only played on a one off basis - with Elvis Presley among many others. He is still active in a career spanning over 6 decades. Please tell me what. Thanks in advance. Alain Dormoy (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alain,

1) Your article is too short and doesn't, by itself, show why he is notable. For example, your article has omitted the fact that the encyclopaedia calls him an important pedal steel guitar player. How are people meant to know this without you saying it? If you don't say it, he doesn't look notable.

2)Your article is too short. You should include more background, musical influences, and how he became famous, for example.

3) Thirdly, and this really strikes at the heart of why your article was denied (reference failure is pretty much automatic denial), you need more than 1 reference to establish notability.

Thanks, J.s.071991 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, Thank you for your feedback. I'll keep it in mind when I work on new article projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Dormoy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bus transport in Queensland

I reverted your deletion[1] at Talk:Bus transport in Queensland per the guidelines at WP:REDACT, since your comment has been on the page for a while and because it had drawn a response from another user (me). If you've changed your mind about what you said there, that's fine, but it's better practice to simply add a note saying so, rather than deleting. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadfully sorry, didn't realise. I thought I looked a bit silly after reading your reply! Cheers, J.s.071991 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

East-West Link, Brisbane, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

J.s.071991 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 February 2013 with Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

More details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/7. If you are near Brisbane, I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Billblatsky

I moved this user page to the correct space. It's not that spammy. Please be kind and leave it alone. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Big Six law firms may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

is planned for 2014."</ref> took effect on 1 November 2013, six months ahead of schedue.<ref>[[Title=Ashurst's partners vote for full financial integration|url=http://www.ashurst.com/media-item.
integration|url=http://www.ashurst.com/media-item.aspx?id_Content=9601|date=26 September 2013|}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]