User talk:Paravane

Welcome!

Hello, Paravane, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ronz 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...

...to say that I think you're doing a great job over at the List of castles in England article. It's been long overdue for a revamp, and it's looking so much better. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Cathedral

about style and expression:

I want to encourage you, along with many other readers, to be diligent about reading any article that you add to, and putting stuff in the right place. There was already a sentence about other interesting buildings in the precinct, at the bottom of the "Architecture" section, rather than in the "History". Your information fitted that section, which already mentioned the deanery.

Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

Please don't adjust caption sizes in infoboxes, there is no need to do this on an article by article basis. If you think the text should be small then go to the template talk page and propose that the template be changed. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying talk page messages

Hi, I saw your comment that you feel talk page messages must remain forever. They don't. If you don't like a talk page message (with a few minor exceptions, like block notices), then just delete it. If you like, I can set up talk page archiving for you, so that talk page messages (here) will be removed to an archive automatically, once they have not been replied to for 7 days, or 14 days, or however many days you choose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I have assumed the history remains visible. I'll deal with it manually, leaving the messages will serve as a reminder to myself to resist the urge to do too much editing... Paravane (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content can be deleted at any time, but the history remains visible for ever - unless someone posts something horribly defamatory in which case edits can be expunged/redacted. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		Castle Barnstar
		For excellence in articles on English castles. - Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, almost done at last! - Paravane (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Castle

Hello, Could you have a look at the Liverpool Castle article as it has a good section on the folly. The two accounts should preferably complement each other which is not true now. The structure of the folly is based on an architectural blend of knowledge about medieval castles and documentary evidence devised 10 years earlier by E. W. Cox.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough on the folly in the settlement article on Rivington, there is no point producing the same information in every article.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more to say about the folly, it could be given a page of its own: that would allow reference to its context in Lever Park as well as its being a replica of Liverpool Castle. For an example of an article on a folly castle, see Mow Cop Castle. I notice that in the Liverpool Castle article that the folly is not given a name, except in the citation. I think it would be useful for it to be named there as Lever Castle or Rivington Castle. - Paravane (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it makes for very awkward reading and is usually called the castle or Liverpool Castle. Lever Castle appears to be the name adopted by a website and EH refer to it as Rivington Castle. the OS map refers to The Castle.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes for awkward reading is not content but awkward writing. No doubt the people of Windsor refer to Windsor Castle as 'the castle', but it does not mean that that is its correct name. Liverpool Castle was demolished in the 18th century. The folly in Lever Park needs to be identified by an appropriate name, so that it can be referred to, searched for and linked to. Given that EH uses the name Rivington Castle, that is an appropriate name to use. - Paravane (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map start

If you don't want to do it your self, I would like to convert the map templates in List of castles in England from {{Location map start}} to {{Location map+}}. It is the only page on which {{Location map start}} is used. Its just easier to maintain fewer templates and if {{Location map start}} is orphaned (not used), it will be easier to get it deleted.

Including the link to coordinates function you mention is possible but it might be easy for me to write a simple template that would take a UK grid reference and generate a link to the geohack page. It might look something like {{gbmlink|SU9701977005}}. –droll [chat]

Fine to both suggestions. The location maps were actually only added today, not by me. It would be an advantage if the grid reference were accessible, I'd assume this could be done using the alt parameter for the location image spot. Also would the form <a href="..." target="_blank"> be usable to open a new window for the geohack page? The list of castles is very large and slow to load, so it would be an advantage not to leave the page. Thanks for implementing this! Paravane (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the map templates in the article. I've been thinking over the link from the mark question. There is no wiki markup, that I know of, that will force a new tab (window) to open. If the control key is pressed during the click, the link will be opened in a new tab. At least it does on four out of the five browsers I have on my machine. Opera uses shift click. If you have a wheel mouse, then clicking the wheel will open a new tap in five out of five, unless its configured differently. You probably already know that.

Most of the articles I have looked at use the mark link option to link to an article. For example, clicking on Windsor would open the Windsor Castle article. From there, a reader can go to the geohack page. If you look at the "Two cites in the United States" example on the Location map+ documentation page, you will note that both the labels and the marks have links associated with them (which is probably a bit much). What do you think?. –droll [chat] 08:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely like the option to be able to go straight to geohack. One reason is that there may be no wiki page for the castle in question, so no location data available for it on any wiki page. Also, on the list of castles page, there are already links to every relevant article, it would be slicker to be able to get to geohack in one step rather than two, the same functionality that could otherwise be achieved by having another column in the tables for geohack links, as is done in the List of castles in Scotland. Also, the grid reference could be made visible through the alt= parameter for the mark, so providing a complete alternative to a separate column for location data. If the label on the map conventionally links to a wiki page (or nowhere) and the mark always to geohack (or nowhere), they could be combined on the same map, and it would be a standard functionality that people would quickly get used to, do you agree?

If I save the Location map+ documentation page to disk, edit the html to change

to

then on loading the page from disk, and clicking on the Marseille link, the Marseille page opens in a new browser window under IE7. But I cannot say whether wiki markup supports this (presumably it could in theory be amended to do so), nor whether it works for all browsers. It would be a nice touch if it could be done, but I'll be happy to have the geohack link anyhow. Paravane (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template {{gbmlink}} which allows a mark link to the geohack page. I don't know how some might react. We'll have to wait and see. There is an example in the documentation. I checked on the a tag. I don't think there is anyway to insert target="_blank" into the HTML using markup. Wiki seems to prevent any attempt to use the a tag directly. I'm not an expert on this so my opinion is not necessarily correct. –droll [chat] 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that works a treat, I can't imagine why anyone would object to having this facility available... Thanks for this, and for replacing the templates for the castles list. A detail, do you not think that links both from marks and from labels would stand out better if the overall link to the map source were suppressed? Then the change in the mouse cursor would alert the user to the presence of the wiki or geohack link. Paravane (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the links from labels and markers. There is just something about it that feels strange to me and I can't put my finger on it. As for why some might object, read the OS coord documentation. The warning has been there since December 2006. It might not be up to date. We'll see. –droll [chat] 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious comments

[1] There are some serious aspersions in your comments here that are in breach of WP:ETIQUETTE. For the record, I'd like you to quote these so called "personal attacks", strict definition being - name calling, hate crime, abuse, or violent remarks, per WP:NPA#WHATIS. Questioning another editors behaviour is not on the list, you'll find. Should you fail in that, I will have an admin look into it as I find your remarks despicable. Bear in mind that the main contributor to the linked Peer Review was myself, with considerable input, half of which you dismissed for more unsightly bulkier alternatives, IMO. If you are protesting my edits, you are only incriminating yourself as intolerant of other contributions, and WP:OWN applies to you once again. Your attempt to reiterate that I increased the filesize due to adding date sorted is noted. Your point - if not callous? I remind you again that I was not aware of WP:SIZERULE at the time, and even if I was, you welcomed the edit at the time, to quote you: "Sortable dates is plainly another task to be added to the todo list, your example works well." If I hadn't have done it, you, or someone else would. Once again, you raise a moot argument.

I'd also like to remind you of this comment you made: "If the sizes of columns are fixed, I'm not confident that this will not have adverse consequences for smaller format devices such as tablets." If you think table columns have an affect, don't you think the huge page size will have an even bigger effect? Of course it will.. I think you pick, choose and conceive arguments to suit your own purposes. This clearly shows that there is no constant logic to it, however.

I'm too tired to bother with this nonsense you're attempting just now. I think on the weekend I'll look to WP:RFC for thoughts.. your spin is underhanded, and not appreciated. Nor are your insinuations. If you can support your offensive "some other agenda" remark, please do so - until then, your adversarial attitude is not welcome. Wiki works through open communication. You treat this article so much as your own, quote "the result of a great deal of work by me", you forget that others have given you the ideas through the Peer Review, including myself. That others have contributed, and you often revert or rewrite a little later. I do not appreciate your dishonesty in order to swing the consensus into some form of sympathy vote. If you cannot accept my concerns for this article are in good faith, you are either not competent to edit in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, or need to take a wiki-break and enjoy some time offline. I suggest you fine-tune that last post, if you don't want a fuss made of it. Name calling is for children. I respect the fact that you put effort into the article, but you have to respect that Wiki does not allow ownership, or oversized pages - and you clearly want both. If you feel I'm in your way, then use my talk page - but don't ever make off=hand remarks about me like that again. I question your own agenda.

Have reapplied {{very long}} - as long as it's oversize, it's legit and within wiki policy to display. Removal by you may be deemed WP:COI. Don't play "wiki-lawyer" either, it's frowned upon.

Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 00:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting such as this [2] could be considered WP:Canvassing and reported on the admin noticeboard. Your non-neutral tone, particularly "A problem has now arisen, not with an edit war but with an editor using WP policies and guidelines as a means to attack the page - and me - relentlessly" is a clear example of further unwillingness to tune in to Wiki guidelines, in this case behavioural ones. Given that you requested a consensus and are now selectively asking people to speak in your favour, your comments represent a conflict of interest. I do not want to see you blocked from editing - but if that becomes the last resort, so be it. You further prove your unwillingness to collaborate by not responding to my earlier comments above. I don't know whether you're just plain selfish, ignorant or unwilling to accept the facts. But so far it seems that consensus is in favour of splitting the article — note consensus' aim to support solutions not editors — on the talk page, and reiterated under your village pump and FLC talk stunt threads as you move from page to page looking for straws to clutch - Woody didn't care either, it seems. Surprised? I also note that not one uninvolved editor has agreed with you that I am "attacking the page - or you - relentlessly", per your propaganda. It is clear that you are competent enough using the English language - I do believe we are on a par with each other when it comes to being expressive.. maybe I flatter you there. I think, however, you need to start looking towards the conclusion of this "no split war" you are looking to create - and bear in mind that I have not "demanded" anything, far from it, I simply strongly "recommended" it. The fact that you are letting your own fury spiral out of control across other areas of Wiki, whilst I am maintaining a discussion you opened on the talk page, speaks for itself. You are appealing to no one, and begging to everyone - whilst remaining intent on subduing any attempts to deal with the actual problem at hand. Your objective should be to consider the Wiki issues: the size of the article - not me, or my opinions, or those who agree with me. I am within my rights to raise this issue, and you are within yours to deny there is an issue - if you can back it without vested interests. I don't need to appeal to anyone, on other boards - because the facts stand for themselves. The only thing you are really protesting, if you think about it.. is your own work. It got out of hand, and you won't admit it. There is little to be gained from seeking so many outsider views.. because all they're doing is coming along, reading my comments, and those who support them, then giving the same nod of agreement. In short, you're not creating any detractors and stand alone in your efforts. As much as I'd like to sympathise with you, in truth you had ample chances to assume good faith, instead you took unwarranted personal offence. Wiki is consensus-based, and your attempts to kerb opposition makes for a bad record, in the long term. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of advice

Instead of all this R1, R2, to R5 mumbo-jumbo in the Refs - why don't you just put "PSC" with no period, with the key saying "PSC Pastscape - Retrieved <all the same date>"

That's going to save you something like ~450 times: dot space R# dot - 5 bytes per ref. Couple of Kb of junk, gone in a flash, plus those 5 lines in the key. There's taking referencing for what it is, and taking it way too literally - little white lies - no ones going to check or even know the actual date you retrieved each ref, and if you verify a ref on a later date, it counts as retrieving - so simply pretend you got them all on the same day, to cut the bloat and pointless R# key riff-raff. All you really need to do is verify say 40 or so evenly distributed from the refs, to leave little doubt the rest still exist.. no reason why EH would remove them, right.. can you think of any logical reason why they would?

Either way, I can tell you editing the full article can still be very slow - and it's not just connection and server that gets overloaded - figured its Twinkle too: that runs on Javascript, and ~2Mb of wiki-markup to highlight and all that it does in the edit box is a lot, given that Javascript is quite cumbersome per se. All well and good trimming bits out here and there.. but that lawn needs mowing more where it counts.

If you want me to do it, with regex, say so.. saves you pissin' around doing each one at a time for hours. Otherwise, have fun!

Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would really like to be helpful, please remove the {{very long}} tag. Paravane (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So who does that help? You? What about WP:ACCESSIBILITY considerations, of which WP:SIZERULE is the technical part.

191,815 ÷ 1,024 = 187.32Kb

Not to mention the images - regardless of whether they are sent to the browser compressed and inflated, not everyone has broadband. Not saying the images should go.. would be boring without them, just saying you're less flexible than the guidelines when it comes to "compromise".

Look at this: Lists of Victoria Cross recipients - see the first 3 items? Did it even cross your mind you could have done that - same lead in each, piece of piss to maintain only 3 at ~60Kb each, rather than 1 bulk one, or 49 scrappy ones. Right? Could even push a bit more info in each, get them to ~80Kb and still be very accessible. You just don't want to accept alternatives. 1, 3, 49? Why don't you be bold, make it 3, make the current one the "index", like that VC page and everyone will give you a big pat on the back for the effort.. it's like.. a 10 min job. Don't even need a consensus, you know everyone wants it - but 3 vs 49 is in your favour, by 46. Right?

Ciao, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at List of castles in England

A consensus is taking place at Talk:List of castles in England. You are invited to participate.

Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration...

Hi! Hope all's well. I was wondering if you fancied working in a joint effort to create a "List of town walls in England and Wales" article? I've been doing some work on the individual fortifications and a list article is starting to look attractive, but I lack the discipline to write one on my own. There are around 40-50 in total I think, and most have decent pictures of some sort. Let me know what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been planning on doing any more lists, but I'm happy to help get this one off the ground, since it's relatively small. I have an initial list of 68, of which 23 might not merit inclusion because there's little or nothing remaining. Given that medieval circuits include reused Roman walls, would you plan to include Silchester, Verulamium and Caerwent? If we can agree on the columns I'll create a table: Place, County, Date, Condition, Image, Notes - what do you think? Paravane (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the headings. I'd include the ones with little remaining, because in some cases there's historical pictures we can draw on and often academic literature. I've got Creighton and Higham's latest book on town walls, so I can probably cover the intro. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created page with skeleton table. Paravane (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebergham

Sorry, we were purging everything introduced by a particular blocked user who has used literally hundreds of sockpuppet accounts. You're free to restart that article; I'll relay the information to you later today. DS (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the recovered content introduced by you: "Sebergham Castle is a farmhouse, formerly known as Colerigg Hall, transformed into a Gothick folly in the late eighteenth century.<ref>[http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-72485-sebergham-castle-and-barn-and-stable-wing Sebergham Castle]</ref>

A mile to the south-west of the village is Warnell Hall, a fortified house which is now a farmhouse. It was built in the 16th century incorporating part of a 14th century [[Peel tower|pele tower]].<ref>[http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=10551 Warnell Hall at Pastscape]</ref>" DS (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were also user:Begrums Farm 1, you did not contribute to the article on Preston Patrick. DS (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I added content to Endmoor which was transferred to Preston Patrick by user:Begrums Farm 1. I see that content has now been restored to Endmoor. Paravane (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BT Tower taller than Blackpool Tower

Hi,

please explain your edit to me. It is clearly that BT Tower is much taller than the Blackpool Tower. Besides of this: also the Blackpool Tower is not a pure observation tower because it is also used as a radio transmission tower. --Alabasterstein (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BT Tower is much taller. The question is how this category should be interpreted. The BT Tower can be considered a building - and is repeatedly referred to as such on its wiki page - rather than merely a tower. It incorporates office space and a restaurant, and was built as a communications tower, not an observation tower. The Blackpool Tower on the other hand was built as a landmark and observation tower, and its use for radio transmissions is a later adaptation. In my view, therefore, the Blackpool Tower belongs in this category and the BT Tower does not. Paravane (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. But from architectural point of view (and that is the basic principle we should look about) your thesis is not durable. Architectural both (BT Tower and Blackpool Tower) are buildings! And both are towers. Towers are special buildings to encircle from skyscrapers and (guy-wired) masts. So BT Tower is not a mast and it is not a skyscraper. It was build as a TV and Radio Tower including an observation deck for visitors. It is correct that Blackpool Tower was original designed as a observation tower. In these days without TV and Radio it could for sure not transmit TV or Radio signals. So you see: both are towers, just differ in the building technique and design. After all those towers are nearly 80 years apart from their start of construction, so there is no wonder about their differences. Both towers have an observation deck that is open for public and BT Tower is higher, so there is no reason to refer to Blackpool Tower in this list. --Alabasterstein (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC) (By the way: I am author of de:Blackpool Tower in the german speaking wikipedia)[reply]

As I noticed just now the BT Tower doesn't seem to be open for public any more [3]. So we can leave the list as a compromise in your version. Have a nice evening. --Alabasterstein (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you in several respects, but there is no present need to continue the discussion if you are happy to leave the list unchanged. I was not myself responsible for putting the Blackpool Tower in this category, which suggests - since the BT Tower is very well known - that at least one other editor agrees with me! Paravane (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you disagree. But wikipedia has to orient oneself at scientifical facts and arguments and not at personal beliefs. no hard feelings --Alabasterstein (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location map help

hi, i saw some of your comments on the location map page and am assuming you have some knowledge about it. how do i make a name appear on mouseover to a marker:

you can see my code here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Misconceptions2/sandbox, it has a part which says "link=Rayyis", but it does not say rayyis on mouse over to the marker which has the label=Exp. of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Is)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple post. Have responded at User talk:Misconceptions2#Location maps. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of demolished buildings and structures in London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Nash, Central Criminal Court, Queen's Tower and Crosby Hall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of demolished buildings and structures in London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Stirling, Newgate Street, Pall Mall and Robert Smirke

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Chris the speller#List of castles in England

Hello, Paravane. You have new messages at Chris the speller's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of demolished buildings and structures in London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park Lane (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) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shard floor count

Hello Paravane, I hope you're well. Just to let you know, I've raised the issue of the number of floors that The Shard has over on Talk:List of tallest buildings in Europe. Your recent edit there made me aware of a potential discrepancy to do with how we decide how many floors each building has, but your edit is otherwise unrelated.

Nonetheless, you're more than welcome to come over to the Talk page and contribute, if you are that way inclined. Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chambord castle

According to you what Chambord castle is? Phamnhatkhanh (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A castle is a fortified residence, 'château-fort' in French. Chambord is an unfortified residence, a house not a castle. Paravane (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on List of demolished buildings and structures in London

Hi Paravane, many thanks for the clarification, which is very logical. I've also left a response on the talk page. Must confess, I wasn't entirely sure when I placed this – possibly it's worth adding in similar clarification on the page lede/intro? I think the idea of classification of lesser notable buildings by borough (or era or purpose) might work well and would also avoid the above page becoming a catch all. Libby norman (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree. I've added a sentence to the lead. An advantage of lists by borough would be to make it easy to add any local building regardless of era or purpose. Paravane (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of castles in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway Tower (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) 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]