User talk:Miss.Indecisive

Welcome!

Hi, Miss.Indecisive. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Toccata quarta (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hi Miss.Indecisive: The purpose of an infobox is to be an at-a-glance summary; whether it looks cluttered to you or not is therefore a matter for the amount of information, and removing things on purely aesthetic grounds is misleading to the reader. I have reverted a couple of your changes and will be looking at more, but I do note that you have added information to some articles, which I think is preferable. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss.Indecisive, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Miss.Indecisive! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Miss.Indecisive. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi. I notice that this is becoming a pattern in your editing. For example, at Drew Barrymore, combined with your IPs, you have 4 reverts. One, two, three, four (and you are editing several other articles in the same manner). You need to start using the talk page rather than edit warring, or you might find yourself being blocked eventually. Will you do that? Thanks. Nymf (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's become a particular pattern of yours to revert my changes without adequate reasoning. I will start to use the talk page if that shall please you, however, please note that several others have gotten into a habit of reverting MY changes, also without proper reasoning and simply because they prefer their edits over those of others. Several times I have justified my edits with Drew barrymore that continue to be reverted. There should be a limit as to how much information is in the infobox and there is information in there about the entire drew barrymore family that is already present in other sections. The infobox is about HER and should remain that way- parents should be included but not distant ancestors, albeit their fame. Perhaps you should begin to revert changes out of reasoning and proper thought rather than habit? Will you do that? Thanks. Miss.Indecisive (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above was a friendly message, so please do not reply with a hostile attitude. You are basing your edits on what you think is appropriate. However, there are guidelines that governs this (e.g. Template:Infobox person and MOS:INFOBOX), which states that it is perfectly fine and actually preferred to list the things that are listed. Again, if someone reverts you, and you still believe that your edit is appropriate, you should use the talk page. Nymf (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted at least 4 times on Zara Philips [1][2][3][4]. Using an IP for one of the middle edits has the appearance of sock puppetry and you are misusing the "minor edit" check box. Note that edits should only be tagged as minor when the edit "could never be the subject of a dispute". You know that the edit is the subject of a dispute, therefore the edit should not be tagged as minor. Instead of revert-warring with obtuse edit summaries, attempting to hide edits by marking them as minor, and using IPs to create the appearance of greater support, please follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again- you really love inciting these little "disputes" that you create through perception. And what of your reverts? How many times have YOU reverted edits? Of course that was a minor edit and should not be open to dispute, as infoboxes are summarising information. You need not repeat what is already in another section- the name/gender etc of the child need not be known in the infobox. To state the number of children is sufficient and has been accepted and used frequently on most pages. Don't falsely accuse me of "hiding" my edits and your unusual claims of "sock puppetry"- I've only ever used one account? Is anyone else subject to these derogatory claims?

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted at least three other editors on that one article actually. If you do not wish to be accused of hiding edits or using sock puppets, then don't tag disputed edits as minor and don't edit using an IP. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Who, may I ask? And once again, what of your reverts? Being an administrator does not make you immune to these wikipedia policies either. You have reverted edits of others several times, and most of the times these reverts have not been constructive. They have been centred around your opinion of what should be on the page, with little to no consensus from what I've seen. You've got the wrong idea. I have repeated this already- I do not use my IP address; I only use this account. Those edits are not mine- do not make unjustified assumptions. I will refrain from tagging edits as "minor" and contributing to those pages (as I am seemingly unwelcome) if it shall give me peace from your pestering proclivity. :I

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hipposcrashed, Surtsicna and Difficultly north. My reverts are always constructive and invariably follow consensus. It is obviously your IP address and your edit; dissembling about it is further evidence that you are deliberately trying to avoid scrutiny. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Did you not just read what was written? That is NOT my IP address- neither of those. In fact, if you would like, I will log out of this account and make an edit or comment so you can see what my IP address number actually is. I don't care if you don't believe it- I don't lie and certainly do not try to "avoid scrutiny". How is it "obvious"? That's the most ridiculous justification for an unreasonable conclusion. I genuinely feel upset that you regard me in such an unpleasant light.

This is just childish and disgusting. If you continue to make accusations I will not hesitate to consult someone about this.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think neutral advice from someone else will mirror what I and others have already told you several times: instead of edit-warring, follow the guidance on dispute resolution. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. You'd be wise to take on some of that guidance as well! I do think you owe me an apology for those false accusations... :( Cheers,

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aaron Taylor-Johnson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. 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:

}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I didn't notice that happened! I've edited and fixed it :) You can look over it again to see if it's ok. Cheers! Miss.Indecisive (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabrielle Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Howard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Miss.Indecisive. You have new messages at Talk:Fergie (singer).
Message added 00:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Aaron Taylor-Johnson because it didn't appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what exactly did you undo? It looks exactly the same to me. All I did on his page was replace "2 daughters" with "2" in his infobox. That still remains, so what exactly did you revert that was not constructive, as my edits on his page were minor.

Cheers

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did replace "2" with "2 daughters" on your first edit here. However, on your second edit here, as well as correctly amending the unpaired brackets, you also incorrectly removed the redirect hatnote for Aaron Johnson (disambiguation), which I restored here. I hope that is clear, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Naya Rivera shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. As you were already advised, the information you're adding is already in the article, and does not belong in the inforbox ES &L 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate your threats of blocking me, and your comments about an "edit war" that I certainly did not stimulate. I am simply updating information. Why is it that you continue to revert the changes despite my citations?? Is it not YOU that is provoking this edit war? I used sources to cite her engagement to Big Sean in her infobox, as he is not simply her 'partner' but also her fiancee- since the infobox is a summary of her life, should it not include mention of her engagement, despite it already being mentioned in other sections? Mention of being "engaged" has been included in several pages such as Ginnifer Goodwin, Ciara and Behati Prinsloo yet nothing has been reverted or said of "edit warring". I am certain that if a more "experienced" editor had undergone the same edits as I on Naya Rivera's page, they would not be plagued by comments of "edit warring" and be threatened. I have provided adequate reasoning and cited sources to justify my edits, yet what reasoning have you provided for your reverts? My informationwas not false, nor was it disruptive.

I believe your reverts are fuelled by condescension for new editors rather than proper reasoning. I'm sure you'd be upset if someone dubbed your editing as "warring" when all you did was update information about relationship status. What is said in the personal life segment should be reflected in the infobox, the summary that underpins the entire page.I suggest you justify your reverts, just as I am justifying my edits.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BRD, you are REQUIRED to discuss it on the article talkpage to obtain new consensus. That's how Wikipedia works, If your bold edit is reverted, you are never permitted to re-add it until you have WP:CONSENSUS to do so. This applies to EVERY editor new or old, and is not optional. So, since you failed to justify anything on the article talkpage, and you have failed to engage the community in that edit, it's not permitted - yet - and yes, you can be blocked because of it. No - it's not a threat, it's a warning, carefully crafted by the community and endorsed by the WMF. ES &L 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pop in here to mention that a WP page I sometimes refer to is Wikipedia:Edit warring. It lists all the expected behaviors and remedies when a series of edits/reverts starts occurring and states "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page" in order to gain editorial consensus from the community about the matter. Miss Indecisive, as a fairly-new editor, you might not be aware of the Three-revert rule which states that:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."

I know one thing you feel strongly about in your Wikipedia editing is working-on/recrafting/editing Infoboxes in many of the articles you have edited. Please, per Wikipedia's stated rules and guidelines, if you run into another editor who reverts your content, please discuss the issue on the associated article's talk page before you change the reverted content back to your preferred version. Also, you should perhaps consider posting your concerns about Infoboxes at the various Wikipedia pages I mentioned on my talk page in the Query section that you started. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand. Several other actors and actresses have "engaged" written in their infoboxes, why is it that you continue to remove this? This edit need not gain consensus when it involves the insertion of one word- and this edit is supported by several sources?? Even though it is written in the personal life segment, it must be reflected in the infobox which functions as the summary of her page. You forgot that you also failed to engage the community and justify your revert.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not belong in the infobox on any article. Nevertheless, the onus is on YOU, the person who wants to add it to gain consensus. That's the rule on Wikipedia - I have no need to justify my removal, but nevertheless I have multiple times. ES &L 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Miss.Indecisive. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 00:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Miss.Indecisive. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes.
Message added 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Per MrMustache's suggestion, I didn't know that embedding was even possible... If that workaround (or a link to that workaround) could be posted on the various WP pages that editors might refer to, it would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just left this message on the WikiProject Musicians talk page:

"No infobox for composers?

While Clara Schumann has an infobox her husband Robert Schumann does not; neither do Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Johannes Brahms or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.

If there is an infobox for composers, please send me the link.
If there isn't, is there a reason why not?
If it's an oversight, would somebody with more wiki-programming savvy than me {I know: I} like to create a decent one?

Who's game? Cheers!" Who knows? Maybe we'll meet in the middle! Cheers! Shir-El too 13:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have not yet been made official unfortunately, and we're still waiting to reach consensus- people still believe that an infobox format is unnecessary :( You can check out the progress and make some comments- there is a link on my talkpage to Wikiproject infoboxes. I definitely think someone should create a spouse and children parameter for musical artists but there is still resistance. Being quite new and inexperienced, I cannot make the changes myself nor can I have great influence on the outcome of the consensus. I'm relying on more experienced editors to help out.

Nice to have someone who supports the need for infoboxes! :)

cheers

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, they are not needed, per WP policy. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? And why is that the case? Miss.Indecisive (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IBX says, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Toccata quarta (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! But most people seem resistant about embedding musical artist with infobox person. Cheers for the heads up,

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Megan Fox may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying

This edit of yours is not "tidying", it is "removed children from infobox". I reverted the edit. If you think it is necessary, please explain in the edit summary why you think so. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The children were certaintly not removed! Rather than listing names, numerical information was used to mention how much children she had. This is used on several other pages, so what is the concern here? Besides, none of the children have wikipedia pages, so what is the use of having them there if you cannot click on them? Save the detail for the personal life section :S

Cheers, Miss.Indecisive (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know children are often removed if they don't have articles of their own. By the way, I don't really agree with that. But the edit summary "tidying" was a little too simple for that change. That's all. No real problem here, just bringing this to your attention. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will be more specific next time! Thanks for the tip :) Miss.Indecisive (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kristin Kreuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Hildreth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Milano

I will let it go this time (since your edit technically isn't wrong), but per WP:BRD (as you should already know from your past), when someone reverts your edit, discuss on talk page, not in the edit summary (while just reverting back). --Musdan77 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one really tends to do that though. Everyone just reverts and reverts and reverts, without discussing on the talkpage- even the editors who've been here for a while. And many people don't check the talkpage, or sometimes i wait for ages before there's a reply. However, i will keep this in mind for next time :)

Cheers Miss.Indecisive (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erin McNaught, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Example (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carey Lowell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"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:

| spouse = {{marriage|John Stember]]|1984|1988}} <br>{{married|[[Griffin Dunne]]|1989|1995}}<br>{{married|[[Richard Gere]]|2002|2013|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partner parameter

Per Template:Infobox person, the partner parameter is for unmarried life partners only. Not boyfriend and girlfriends, not just because they lived together, or even if they are engaged. Example of life partners are like Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. If the couple is engaged then they take themselves out of the category of "unmarried" life partners. And boyfriend and girlfriends live together, doesn't make them life partners, just makes them boyfriends and girlfriends who live together. Big difference. The only exception I do is if the couple has a child together but aren't married. Your edits are in good faith, but it's just a headache having to undo these kind of edits. So just for future reference. Thanks :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kelly Clarkson. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter characters

Hello. The reason I have reversed your changes to the infobox of characters is that these must reflect the characters as they appear in the work. They are only married in the final chapter of the saga. Marking them as married is applying real-world logic to literary characters. Mezigue (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation :) But I don't completely understand- on the page of Katniss Everdeen, for instance, 'spouse' and children are mentioned but only appear in the final chapter of the book also. Yet for all the Harry Potter characters, these details have been neglected. Of course it is not a BLP and is fictional but it should be incorporated . There should be consistency across Wikipedia pages, and if it is done for the characters of the Hunger Games then I see no issue with it being done for the characters of Harry Potter. What do you think? :)

Cheers, Miss.Indecisive (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you should do is correct the other page if it's wrong! Mezigue (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kelly Brook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David McIntosh. 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) 08:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evan Peters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burbank High School. 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) 08:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Ajram, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Megastar and Arabica. 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) 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikki Reed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul McDonald. 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) 09:15, 25 September 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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blake Lively, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bedford, New York. 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) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Miss.Indecisive. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Miss.Indecisive. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]