This user is busy on campus until April 10, 2008 (EDT), and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Yes, I do know this is somewhat redundant since I already mention it on my user page.

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Xiong Chiamiov ^talk ^contact 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity

Just in case you miss it when you log in again ;-), there are new comments on Talk:Wikiversity. I don't always check my watchlist on Wikipedia so you might have to wait a bit before I see any response you make, or you can ping me on Wikiversity. Cheers! Cormaggio ^{is learning} 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semaphore line blanking

Resolved

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Semaphore line, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Semaphore. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coren,
In the process of splitting Semaphore into flag semaphore, semaphore line, and Railway signal#Mechanical signals, I found that your bot blanked one of my articles, since I hadn't deleted yet the original. The original article, however, does include template:splitsection, and I think your bot should be able to recognize that. For the rest, I don't think this bot was such a bad idea, it just needs some perfecting.
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot shouldn't be able to blank anything. Can you provide me with a diff so I can track this down? — Coren ^(talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact moment the article was blanked. [1]. Obviously, it was someone else's doing. No, I hadn't looked into it before, I simply supposed that the message I was getting, and what was on the page 60 seconds later, were in reference to the same thing. Sorry about that.--190.74.108.43 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. For future reference, however, what you've been doing has another problem altogether. By copying the contents of Semaphore into Semaphore line you would be loosing the edit history which is a big GFDL no-no. The correct way of doing a disambiguation like that is to move the article into its new title and replace the then-created redirect with the disambiguation. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa wait. I can't move the article towards two places, or can I? (that's why I'm splitting it like this) --Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that's a GFDL headache. As a workable compromise, history should follow the bigger part; and the paste over the created redirect is made to contain a wikilink to the new name so that history can be followed (manually). My understanding is that this was the case, although I haven't looked at all the history of what exactly you have been doing — I might have mistaken which was the bigger part.

It's too late now to make the move (if it's still warranted) by a non-admin (because of the existing target), but I'll do it for you if you need. — Coren ^(talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semaphore line is indeed the biggest part. Tell you what: I expect to be done with Semaphore line in five minutes. At that time I'll paste the contents of Semaphore line over the main Semaphore page (without the "in use" template) Do you think you could do the delete/move/whatever it is you do/ for me then? I'd appreciate it if you also don't leave a redirect at Semaphore, because I'm going to move Semaphore (disambiguation) towards there.--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect gets created automatically upon a move, but I'll delete it to make room. Just say the word once you're ready. — Coren ^(talk) 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Remember to link to the Semaphore line history. — Coren ^(talk) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thank you! er.. what do you mean "link to the history"?--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A linke like this so you can jump straight from history to history — but don't worry about it; this is strictly a convenience and not a requirement. — Coren ^(talk) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Semaphore line! Motmit (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humak

Talk:Model Town Humak/Archive 1#Template:advert

Phobia infobox

Creation

After the previous attemps to create a template on phobias failed (second-latest, latest), I've thought that the best way to deal with the problem is an infobox. This would be a modified version of the existing template:Infobox Disease, with added fields for the phobias. The fields of the disease infobox are needed since some articles incorporate them already.

Most fields are pretty self-explanatory, but I'll explain them anyway, from top to bottom. Naturally, the exact format I'm proposing is very debatable.

The image field (and implicitly, caption field) is not necessary; I just included it because arachnophobia has an image. A possible use for it could be displaying the greatest fear of people who have that phobia. (My original idea was putting a picture of a crowd in agoraphobia but a better --and already existing-- example can be found in Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. However, I'm not sure that phobia is "clinically recognized")
The "Latinicised" (alternatively, "Romaized") name field shows the one-word name ending in -phobia given to that phobia. Particularly useful when it's not in the article name, or when several such names exist.
The "fear of" field is the converse of the "Latinicised name" field. Where the latter shows the name ending in -phobia, the former has more or less what that word means. It doesn't have to be a literal translation, as the article text already does that. For example, trypanophobia could have "fear of injections" here. Again, particularly useful when the article name is latinicised, and the reader may need to scroll into one of the subtitles to
Category is either social, specific, or agoraphobia (per Phobia#Clinical phobias. If possible, the infobox should put the page in the respective category (eg: Phobias>Clinically recognized phobias>Social phobias). If not, all articles with this infobox would be put simply in "Clinically recognized phobias", per GRBerry's suggestion in second-latest|tfd
Type is an optional field for the case of a specific phobia (since social phobias don't seem to be sub-divided). It would be either animal, natural environment, situational, blood/injection/injury, or other (per Specific phobia#Categories of specific phobias).
"Hypothesized evolution relation", another optional field. This is for the cases of nycto, acro, arachno, ophidio, Ailuro, auto, and claustrophobia per Specific phobia#Phobias and evolution.
List of phobias: hopefully will prevent the creation of a new navbox by linking straight to Wikipedia's list of phobias, each of which is accompanied by what it means. If a reader wants to look for "fear of cats", and is on the "fear of the dark" page, let them click "list of phobias", then do a ctrl+F search for "cats".
Finally, "Classification as a disease and external resources", a title that appears if any of the fields of the disease template were used. We'll need all of them just in case (although I know that currently the phobias articles that use them only use ICD-10 and ICD-9, who's saying that, for instance, eMedicine can't decide to put up a page on that phobia, and an editor wants to link to it?

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:Infobox Disease?

Hi, I would agree an infobox template (vs a navigation template) seems more sensible. I've reworked your submission at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed to use the new sub-page system (Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox clinical phobias). This effectively allows a real try-out of the template as it is developed (effectively a sandbox) with all history, sub-paged /doc explanation and discussion threads then preserved on making the infobox live (when moved into real template space).

I would agree with your observation of needing existing Template:Infobox Disease parameters. However rather than create a somewhat duplicated template with additional phobia-parameters, I wonder if it would be best to use existing Infobox Disease template and allow for optional additional phobia parameters ?

I'll come back on Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox clinical phobias re parameter names, features being suggested etc etc in a couple of days (after real-life commitments) David Ruben ^Talk 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but I also thought the usage instructions for that infobox would become excesively long and complicated (which I think they already are) and that would actually discourage its use, which would be contrary to the whole point. Alternatively, we could try to put one infobox under the other on all applicable pages, but it is never certain that this will work apropriately.

I've moved this to the discussion of the template itself. It's not that I don't appreciate you telling me on my talk page about this (as I wasn't planning to come back to this proposal for another month or so), but I just think it's best if we have this discussion in a place where more people will be able to read and interject on it. Hope you don't mind.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True & fair points, but having helped Template:Drugbox become able to cope with 3 very distinct groups of drugs, I do not think, IMHO, it would be that complex.

On reflection though, in constructing encyclopaedic articles, are phobias best considered as diseases or symptoms of a particular past experience - i.e. is this proposed infobox best considered for merging with Template:Drugbox or Template:Infobox Symptom ? As an example Agrophobia would suggest the disease is anxiety disorder and the symptom or specifics is of issues with outside spaces (to over simplify). I ask this now (and I am a doctor myself) as this is likely to be contested eitherway, unless an explanatory rational has already been prepared...

Anyway this can be put on hold, whilst first is considered the parameters currently being suggested. David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that phobias seem more like symptoms. However, taking Claustrophobia as a random example, its ICD-9 number is 300.29, which according to List of ICD-9 codes, puts it under "mental disorders", and disorders are closer to being diseases than they are to being symptoms. And I think whatever decision we take on this, it should be in accordance to established standards and organizations, so as to not be too challengable.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (well stated). David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been a while since anybody has told me that.--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of parameters

Clinically recognized phobia
Claustrophobes have a great fear of being locked up in small places such as elevators or closets
Latinicised name	Claustrophobia
Fear of	enclosed spaces
Category	Specific phobia
Type	Situational type
Hypothesized evolution relation	Fight-or-flight response
L i s t o f p h o b i a s
Classification as a disease and external resources
ICD-10	F40.2
ICD-9	300.29

How should each parameter be named (as distinct from the label heading displayed for each one) and what selection of values is to be offered/proposed. I list the current parameter list and examples value shown at Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox_clinical_phobias. David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Latinicised name" Claustrophobia

This is presumably going to be (?always?) the name of the article. In keeping with Template:Infobox Disease the parameter name should be "Name".
Are all phobias named after the latin, or are some not named for the Greek ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "phobia" itself is greek, but sometimes the prefix is latin (as is the case for claustrophobia). I just went headfirst for "Latinicized" because I didn't think "Greekifyed" was a word (that, and it sounded too much like geeky and I didn't want to offend the Greeks, given that a childhood friend of mine was greek and repeatedly made fun of me for not knowing the greek alphabet). And to say "Greek name" or "Latin name", we'd have to be sure that the name given is actually used in Greece or ancient Rome. As I said before, the name is very debatable, but I couldn't really think of a better alternative. However, taking a page from taxonomists' book, we could put "Scientific name"... if that's correct. As for having it always being the name of the article, this is not the case for many. Fear of the dark and Blood phobia to name a couple.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So "Scientific name" or "Medical name" then (my weak preference is for the latter).David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fear of" enclosed spaces

No problem this parameter, but what to call it - "Fear_of", "Object" or "Target" ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, I was going to have it be "'Meaning:' Fear of enclosed spaces', but thought it was unclear, specially with me saying in the proposal that translations should remain in the article text rather than being put here. That said, the parameter could be called "meaning".

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your originally not labelling it "Meaning:", but I also don't think that would be a good choice of parameter name either, other suggestions more self-explanatory to the lay readership. David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on category below seems to solve it, but it leaves me wondering if it won't be missed in social phobias' pages, since most (if not all) of those are also specific to a certain situation. On the other hand, the examples I gave of social phobias start of saying what those people fear.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category" Specific phobia

I don't understand what this field is for or what other values it might take - aren't all phobias specific on a target (the exception perhaps being generalised anxiety disorder and paranoia) ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossophobia and Agoraphobia are Social phobias, and this (Social phobia) is perhaps the only other value it may take despite the article on phobias saying Agoraphobia is a category unto its own (The Social phobia article says Agoraphobia is a social phobia).

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understand scope of this. If only the two possible values, then template should specific only values of "social" or "specific" be given and the template can auto-link to correct article.

Indeed could define the linked label of the preceeding parameter, particularly as it is only the specific phobias that have a category and Social phobias presumably have no further subdivision (as given by the next parameter). Hence displays of "Specific phobia of:<fear_of>" or "Social phobia of:<fear_of>"David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that sort of thing could be done, and indeed don't understand the markup you used below. That is why I proposed it as a field which could take any value.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Type" Situational type

Again, please explain what this is addressing and range of values that it might take. David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the possible values are "animal, natural environment, situational, blood/injection/injury, or other (per Specific phobia#Categories of specific phobias)."

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(an anon editor just deleted it "Categories of specific phobias" section in that article - I've reverted to restore that section).

Perhaps this parameter then should be named "Category" (given that is what the label will wikilink to) rather than "type"; and then call the previous specific/social distinguishing parameter as "Type" instead.

I presume in Social phobias this parameter is not specified ? David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with calling it category is that we'd then have two parameters named "category". Perhaps calling it subcategory? Though I don't know if what you said above in "category" eliminates the need for naming it entirely. And, no. There doesn't seem to be a subdivision of social phobias, except for the general social anxiety disorder and Agoraphobia, which appear to be sub-categories of social phobias, each onto their own.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hypothesized evolution relation" Fight-or-flight response

I think I can guess at possible scope of this, but "Hypothesized evolution relation" seems awkward (as well as being a long parameter label) - would "Precipiting cause", or "Underlying etiology" be more helpful ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that we can't be sure this is the true reason this phobia exists: There may be others (such as the theory that a psychological trauma during the person's youth can trigger phobias, eg a person could be excessivley afraid of being alone because they once got lost in a building and ended up being locked in, rather than because of the safety in numbers instinct). Not all phobias have one of these, and at the moment only the 7 mentioned in Specific phobia#Phobias and evolution would use this parameter.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the source article on this. If just 7 cases that might use this entry out of some 75 articles listed in Category:Phobias, I don't think this is going to be a useful parameter to be used across the range of target articles.David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, and what is said below about it being inapropriate. It is probably better sorted if included in each of those the articles' texts, or a Wikipedia Category.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions ?

So in summary perhaps just 4 parameters to cover "Scientific name" or "Medical name", "Fear_of" (or some better phrase), "Type" & "Category".

However, if I am correct in understanding that no sub-categorisation exists for social-phobias, then the infobox can be coded by just 3 parameters: "name", "target" and "category"; where "category" is set either to the specially recognised value of "Social" for social phobia or else it defines the category of specific phobias.

Finally an option, to help clarify inclusion into Template:Infobox Disease, might be to name them with "Phobia" prefixes, hence: "Phobia_name", "Phobia_target", "Phobia_category" ?

Once in a Blue Moon, your sensibly thoughtout proposal and clear replies above mean that, if minor points can be agreed, then proposal can be ready to go live quickly - I'll post a heads up at WP:MED and Template:Infobox Disease for interested parties. David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coding proposed therefore as below (initial #if to each of 3 parameters hides section if no Phobia_name defined, i.e. a non-phobia disease article. The #ifeq hides the category entry if 'Social' as no categorisation of this type/class of phobias.):

... image & caption parameter inclusion as per [[Template:Infobox Disease]]

{{#if: {{{Phobia_name|}}} |
! [[-phob-|Name]]
{{!}}{{{Phobia_name|}}} }}
|-
{{#if: {{{Phobia_name|}}} |
!{{#ifeq: {{{Phobia_Category|}}} | Social | [[Social phobia]] | [[Specific phobia]] }} of
{{!}} {{{Phobia_target|}}} }}
|-
{{#if: {{{Phobia_name|}}} |
!{{#ifeq: {{{Phobia_Category|}}} | Social | | '''[[Specific_phobia#Categories_of_specific_phobias|Category]]'''
{{!}} {{{Phobia_Category|}}} }}
!-

... coding & link details as per current [[Template:Infobox Disease]]
!colspan=2|''Classification & external resources''

David Ruben ^Talk 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Infobox Disease#Phobias, seems explanations and proposed causes are not thought appropriate for an infobox. I'll scratch through the cause row on the markup and lets see what other comments we get.David Ruben ^Talk 14:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld

I've just noticed that, to quote the signpost, "WikiWorld has ceased its weekly schedule" and was wondering if you would like any help in making comics. Admittedly, I could never equal your unique caricaturesque style, but am quite accomplished at drawing with both a pencil and a mouse myself. I could never keep a weekly rate (heck, I don't even know if I could keep a triweekly rate), but if there's two of us, we could have a sort of alternating output.

I don't think we could bring the comic back to being weekly, but it could come out more, and if ever both of us have a comic ready for the same week, yours would go before mine. I don't know if you would like to review my article choice or the comics I make themselves before they're published in The Signpost (nor indeed do I currently know how you manage to have them published in The Signpost).

The articles I'll take for making comics will mostly (if not totally) come from the suggestions currently on the WikiProject's talk page. I already have the excepted text for "Fourth wall" and "Time flies like an arrow" and ideas on what to draw for them; as well as an idea of what to draw for "sleepwalking", ontological paradox, and "Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116", though I wouldn't want to start on any of them before you give me the go-ahead.

Let me know what you think
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all necessary to ask permission to do this. It's in the nature of Wikipedia that anyone can contribute - although there is obviously no guarantee that the editors of the Signpost would consider your work good enough to publish it there - and no guarantee that someone wouldn't come along and delete or edit your new content. However, I doubt any of those things would be a practical problem and it would be refreshing to see more people contributing. So go for it! "Time flies like an arrow" seems like a wonderful place to start. SteveBaker (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much requesting permission to draw a comic, nor permission to draw it using this project's good name, as much as guidance on how to get it accepted; particularly how to get it accepted in the signpost. And Greg, indisputably, has experience there.

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your note until now. I agree with Steve, that it would be great to see more people contributing unique creative work related to Wikipedia: cartoons, caricatures, serious illustrations or graphics, photographs, or whatever. As for the WikiWorld project itself, it's not really my call to open that up to other contributors - since the use of Wikipedia's name and logo had to be approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. Luckily, they liked my work well enough to give me the go-ahead. Likewise for the inclusion of the comics in The Wikipedia Signpost, which would be totally at the discretion of the Signpost's editor(s).

If you'd like to develop your own separate project (unconnected to WikiWorld), more power to you. Or, if you're mainly interested in continuing with the established WikiWorld template, I'd be happy to take a look at your stuff - and to speak up on your behalf, if I think it would be a good fit. Either way, I'd be happy to give you my thoughts after I've had a chance to see your work. Why don't you e-mail a couple of things to wikiworldcomic@yahoo.com and we can discuss the best way to proceed. (Or, feel free to approach the Wikimedia Foundation and the Signpost on your own, if you like.)

Thanks for your interest! --Greg Williams (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greg_Williams"

Thank you so much for your reply! I guess it is now my turn to appologize. I was so sure I'd have the time during spring break to draw something up, but now it seems I'll have to put it off a little longer. I guess I've only been able to show why you had to stop, haven't I? :-)

--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your note until now. I agree with Steve, that it would be great to see more people contributing unique creative work related to Wikipedia: cartoons, caricatures, serious illustrations or graphics, photographs, or whatever. As for the WikiWorld project itself, it's not really my call to open that up to other contributors - since the use of Wikipedia's name and logo had to be approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. Luckily, they liked my work well enough to give me the go-ahead. Likewise for the inclusion of the comics in The Wikipedia Signpost, which would be totally at the discretion of the Signpost's editor(s).

If you'd like to develop your own separate project (unconnected to WikiWorld), more power to you. Or, if you're mainly interested in continuing with the established WikiWorld template, I'd be happy to take a look at your stuff - and to speak up on your behalf, if I think it would be a good fit. Either way, I'd be happy to give you my thoughts after I've had a chance to see your work. Why don't you e-mail a couple of things to wikiworldcomic@yahoo.com and we can discuss the best way to proceed. (Or, feel free to approach the Wikimedia Foundation and the Signpost on your own, if you like.)

Thanks for your interest! --Greg Williams (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greg_Williams"

Hi Once. Have you seen the page User:WikiWorldMike? GregManninLB (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Toonimals!

The article Toonimals! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources found beyond a single press release.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:18, 2 February 2013 (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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of fictional books from periodicals

The article List of fictional books from periodicals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This list is tremendously incomplete and serves no purpose.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Once in a Blue Moon. 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 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Military ranks

Template:Military ranks has been nominated for merging with Template:Navalranks. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of fictional books from periodicals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional books from periodicals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Arum maculatum have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Plantsurfer 18:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]