User talk:Misty MH

OLD WELCOME:

Welcome (edited for fun by Misty MH)

Hello, Misty MH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

If you are looking for help or are stuck, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

A few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Also See and Note:

Remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
Wikipedia's verifiability policy. (Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.)
Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

Please sign your name on TALK pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.

You can also ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for fun by me :) Misty MH (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sumer

Hi - I understand the fact tags, but are you going to try to source any of these? Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, All I really did was change what appeared to be an author's POV, being stated as fact (but may or may not be), into something that didn't read quite as extreme, or from a singular point of view. I actually added a number of "Citation needed" tags where it seemed appropriate. And I totally agree that sources need to be added to some of the claims made by earlier authors. I am not sure whether I'll have time to research what may have been a bit of original research on their parts, but I don't plan to do it today. :) So much on W seems like original research, with a lot of it not having any references at all. It's quite frustrating. In this instance, I was a bit fed up with the one-sidedness, and simply eased the verbiage to something that seemed more reasonable (such as changing "most", which needs citation, to "many" which could use citation but may or may not be true). Maybe all I did (in certain instances) was to make someone's original research appear to look more like fact! LOL. In either case, it still needs citations, which it didn't have to begin with! Misty MH (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. No problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Misty MH (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&action=history where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look into it? Thank you71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

Hi,

You can document your changes and concerns in the Discussion area of that document. Make sure you sign your discussions using four tildes in a row. Since you didn't do that here in my User Talk section, your note here went "unsigned". Please sign all your discussions in this way.

Ah, yes -- thx!71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the page to see what you changed, or what they changed; so I cannot comment on that. But even if you do cite sources -- save the info to your computer first, or, you can possibly retrieve your changes by looking back at what someone reverted -- you would need to make sure your statements are made in a way that do not sound like independent research, or your own opinion.

good call on the save first B4 editing -- and citing my sources -- good call here too!!71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think is "the truth", you will want to find a published work that states what it is you want to say. Wikipedia has guidelines regarding such works.

I don't see what religion, religiousness, "God", or "the truth" has to do with an article on College tuition in the U.S., but it sounds interesting.

May I suggest you take your text above, and put it in the Discussion area of the article in question?

Done!71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might behoove you to become registered as well. And of course sign all your discussions with four tildes (easy to forget at first!).

As others remaine anonymous, to protect themselves --or others (just as even you don't sign with your real full name here publicly), so there are occasions where others may want to have anonymity --for now or whenever --even moreso --and so long as it's in good faith, I hope you understand, but thx for the suggestin 2 register.71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may go look after this, but the contribution I made to that article was very small.

Yes, --small --so far -- but your help is being sought now! --Please weigh in on the External Links controversey -- whether there on that article or elsewhere, these links are appropriate, but I don't know enough as yet to determine which article is appropriate for these 'advocacy' and 'consumer' groups links. The community needs all players -incl. you.71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great day!

(-:/ 71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misty MH (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses.

I did go to the article, but didn't really look into it all. I simply fixed some Grammar stuff.

After recently seeing a video on College Tuition, I was concerned that some claims promoting it were unsourced, and added a need for such citations.

Anyway, I added a bunch of notes -- of things I thought important to consider -- in Discussion there.

Some were in reference to suicide (per your concerns). And I do think that suicide is a concern. :) I hope my comments there didn't seem to say otherwise.

Your comments were not confusing (or offensive) -- I made a few edits hither and yon -- you may look at the user contributions to my IP address to see them. And, also, I responded on that talk page. Have a nice night.71.100.190.35 (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misty MH (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on an article

Many thanks for your hard work you did in revising the article Non-physical entity - maybe people will be more keen to keep the article now. While I am here, it is good to read that you feel honoured to edit Wikipedia! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Misty MH, I see that you've contested my PROD on List of life forms. While I can (potentially) see the article serving a purpose under the current name, the article needs to be reworked to fit it's own scope. It has many issues with regards to organization and the possibility that the title is reaching beyond the reasonable scope of an individual wikipedia article. More than likely, with such a broad title, it will eventually be redirected to Lists of life forms, which in turn will be a list of lists-type articles. You're the only person I know of who's shown any interest in this article, so I wanted to ask your opinions on the best way to begin cleanup.

Kind Regards,

Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncboy2010, Thanks for writing. After this week, I may take a look to see what issues pop out at me. Before it was deleted, I skimmed your comment, but didn't see any major issues listed, only that you thought it was too broad. (The list wasn't that long, much shorter than many lists on W.; so it didn't seem an issue yet; and I'd guess it never would be come "too long".) If you can recommend some links that talk about preferred types/forms of lists on W., I can also take a look at those. But let's undelete it first. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list really adds to the scope of Wiki. Any issues I see seem to be minor. (I skimmed parts of Talk. Saw nothing major.) If you think that some links that talk about preferred types/forms of lists on W. can help, I can take a look at those. Other than that, the list seems okay, especially if only a few people are interested in it. ;) Misty MH (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Where did List of life forms go? It doesn't even seem to have a Deleted notification? Not good. Misty MH (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on first name terms?

Hi - I've just noticed that we share somewhat similar usernames here (my full name being MistyMorn).

Yesterday I felt the need to abbreviate my signature to plain "Misty". Then this morning I realized I'd better check that no-one else was already using the same signature. Looking through the wildcard entries for USER:Misty, you seem to be the only other Misty contributor who appears to be currently active. I felt I should make a courtesy call to say hello. Regards, —Misty (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I hope I've now removed most of the potential for confusion by customizing my signature.—Misty_(MORN) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris myth

Hi Misty, I didn't know how to start conversations with others here, this is my first time and I don't know if I did it correctly.

I'm not expert here but this issue is pretty simple, you just need to remove the breaks, the first sentence should start at the beginning of the line, no spaces needed; I don't know how to explain it properly in English or in my native Arabic so here's an example:

Correct

The Osiris myth is the most elaborate and influential story in ancient Egyptian mythology.

Wrong

  The Osiris myth is the most elaborate and influential story in ancient Egyptian mythology.

Thanks Ahmad.j.ziq! I thought that this was the answer. And the goofy gray box, it looks like that appears because of one or more spaces at the front of the line. Interesting. Btw, Make sure you sign your comments on Talk pages with four tilde marks, each of which looks like this: ~. This character should be found on most computer keyboards around the world. :) Thanks again! Misty MH (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the edit summary you used when editing te Velde's bibliographic entry on Osiris myth. Do you mean that H. is his middle initial? Because his first name is definitely Herman, and it's already included in the entry. It's just arranged after his surname in the syntax for Template:Cite book. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I saw that you undid yourself. A. Parrot (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sorry. Yes, And I was just about to say that here when it gave me an "Edit conflict" message. Stupid Wikipedia or browser then no longer had my explanation here! *Arrgh* It was a mistake, which I corrected. I am wondering, though, whether the "te" in the name should be capitalized or not. :) Thanks for writing and asking! (I am now Copying this edit, just in case there is an Edit Conflict, and I lose it!) Misty MH (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Thanks for the link here! Misty MH (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music in the Rockies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Francisco (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) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intended. Thanks (person or bot). Misty MH (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book talk:Xezbeth

User:WarAtTheChromeHeroes became upset at their article being deleted so they moved User:Xezbeth to Book:Xezbeth along with the associated talk page. I cleaned it up and deleted the vandalism. GB fan 00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. Is this related to an article? Because otherwise, I am not sure why I would've gotten a notice from W. about it. Is there still an article if so. Still confused. :-) Misty MH (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only relation to an article I know of is the that User:WarAtTheChromeHeroes was upset that their article was deleted. Two admins deleted the article and War decided to move the userpages of the both in retaliation. The only thing I can think of is that you had commented on User talk:Xezbeth and if it is on your watchlist you would have seen the moves done by War and me. There isn't any article because it was deleted. Hope this clears things up. GB fan 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. What article was deleted? Misty MH (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War at the Chrome Heroes GB fan 02:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. It does often bug me, though, when pages get deleted. I've seen some fine pages trashed. I wonder: How does one UNdelete a page. It seems that even the whole History of a page can't be found after deletion, which I find a horrible "feature" on Wikipedia. Misty MH (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can undelete a page. The Wikimedia Foundation has mandated that anyone who has the ability to see deleted material must go through a process as stringent as what it takes to become an admin. This is the whole text of the article:

War at the Chrome Heroes (better known as W.A.T.C.H.) is an American crossover science fiction action parody film. War at the Chrome Heroes was announced in June 10, 2004 and the released in December 17, 2004.

There are no sources, no external links just those two sentences with an infobox with a bunch of redlinks that have never had articles. GB fan 22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! How do I become an Admin? :) Misty MH (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by looking at WP:RFA. That page is where the actual nomination occurs. These are listed on the RFA page, but I thought I would point them out specifically:

Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates

Some editors have written specific criteria that they go by when they evaluate candidates. Some of these are listed at the bottom of the advice for RFA candidates page. If you have any questions please ask. GB fan 23:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I take it you are an Admin. :) Misty MH (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been an admin for a little over 2 years now. GB fan 00:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basmala

The Trinitarian formula is really only a kind of tangent on that article, so it's just not the place to discuss alternative translations or theological implications at length. The right place to start would be Talk:Trinitarian formula... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I didn't introduce anything "at length". I added only maybe 3 words and a citation to the article. There is really no need to keep removing it. It adds something substantive and notable. Misty MH (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It raises questions of exegesis and interpretation of the Trinitarian formula in an article which is really not mainly about the Trinitarian formula, and where in fact the Trinitarian formula is a distinctly secondary issue. AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it raises issues with the Trinitarian formula's English translation, while what is being discussed in article Basmala is actually its Arabic translation.. AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 11 January 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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Misty MH. 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, Misty MH. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Misty MH. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Roswell UFO incident. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Joseph Smith. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I’ve reverted you. You need to back up your edit with sources, not attack others and just assert that you are right Doug Weller talk 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My Talk entry was NOT a personal attack, nor intended as such:

If other editors can suggest – and have recently suggested – that a "Mormon apologist" has made changes, then I can be concerned about similar, and should be permitted to express similar. Shouldn't I. And such Talk entries honestly expressing concerns should not be deleted. Should they? Such expressions are not personal attacks against someone's person.

Whoever they were, the editor reverted my change while claiming the sources said otherwise. (What sources??) If they can be allowed to say that, then I can say similarly, and did. For future reference, this was the simple change I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith&oldid=prev&diff=1076416531 I believe my particular addition should not have been reverted. J.S. (in the article) was, in fact, arrested. I had read hours before that that he was arrested, and I changed it to say that. And I changed it because the article at that point seemed like it was acting omniscient, like the writer knew what J.S. was fearing; and *that* seemed to make the article look like what happened afterwards was perhaps persecution of what many would believe was a martyr. Omniscient writing is fiction, usually. Should we editors leave in fiction? It is the one who reverted my change who needed to prove the claim of J.S.'s fear, and that it was actually in valid sources.

I changed it because it sounded omniscient and/or like an apologist writing, concerned as a many-year editor, while I was intending to simply read the article for information.

Directly-related to the article in question, and for the record: Are you – or are you not – a believer in Joseph Smith, Jr, or in any of the branches of that religion, or in any of the claimed "revelations", etc.? And: Why were you involved with this particular article's Talk page?

Good day!

Misty MH (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No response here 8 months later. Misty MH (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't on my watchlist and still are not on my watchlist (adding now) and I wasn't notified. I was alsogoing through two major operations for cancer (one failed sadly) and chemotherapy. I'm interested in pseudohistory and have been canvassed by Mormons, so it's interesting. I'm going through chemo again and don't intend to waste what's left of my time delving into this other then look at your link, which was reverted."Jgstokes (talk | contribs | block):::Undid revision 1076264861 by Misty MH (talk). That's not what the currently-cited sources say. If you disagree, take up discussion on this on the talk page, but DO NOT revert to your preferred revision of this unless and until that action is approved by consensus. " Doug Weller talk 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your post at the Phoenix Lights talk page per WP:FORUM

If you had written about your edits and why, that would have been ok. Arguing about the subject itself is not. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Phoenix lights were reverted as you wrongly claimed that sourced text didn't reflect the source

Not by me though. Interesting that this is yet another WP:FRINGE subject. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]