User talk:Patto1ro

Welcome!

Hello, Patto1ro, 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! pschemp | talk 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:Mikebe

You are undoubtedly the same person as User:Mikebe. Since you have voted in AfDs with both accounts, you are violating WP:SOCK. I will kindly ask you to choose one account to edit with. Further use of both accounts may result in me having to take administrative action against you. And we don't want that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the same person as Mikeb. My name is Ronald Pattinson, born 19.10.1956 in Newcastle upon Tyne. Ask Mikeb what his name is. I can guarantee he and I are different people.

I think you are the same person as Gothean. Can you please use one account.Patto1ro 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've endured much abuse for my attempts to correct the rubbish on the beer pages, but being accused of being someone else is just too much. It is possible that more that one person disagrees with some of the ill-informed opinion that passes for fact in the wikipedia pages.

Your certainty that he and I are the same person tells me everything about your objectivity and how big a role facts play in forming your opinions.

The wikipedia is a great idea in theory, but its domination by egomaniacs without a basic grounding in the subjects they attempt to describe negates the advantages of wider participation.

I have only contributed on subjects where I have a genuinely deep knowledge. Being shouted down by a less-informed majority has demonstrated to me the inherent weakness of the format. Why should I waste my time and expertise in such an ultimately futile way?

Will I choose one account to edit with? I think I'll choose no account to edit with. Asking around beer-writing professionals, I've been struck by their contempt for the wikipedia. After a few weeks involvement in editing, I have to agree with them: its contents cannot be trusted.

I thought I would try to improve the beer pages. I now see it was a total waste of my time. As was writing this explanation.

Sigh

An intelligent conscientious user would simply admit his error in judgment and turn to editing the encyclopedia with one account. I'd like a neutral point of view to be presented in beer articles which presents both the European and American views, without discounting either side. But if you want to pretend that you are not Mikebe, so be it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groan

Have you asked Mikebe who he is? No, I didn't think so. You have just assumed him and me are the same person. When you have realise we are two different people an apology would be nice.Patto1ro 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last word on this from me

Personally, I still believe you are the same person. There are enough similarities that make it fairly likely. I do not have any concrete proof, however, and I cannot perform a checkuser, since your actions do not fall into any of the categories authorizing one. I consider the matter at an end. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't my last word. Throw around accusations, provide no evidence and then try to walk away when you know you are in the wrong. Either admit you were wrong or prove your allegations.Patto1ro 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

I don't have checkuser rights they are at WP:RFCU. However, in the past there has been a general inclination not to perform checkuser on users by request since if a user is making the request they could likely have avoid linking any IPs (I'm not going to go into any detail here per WP:BEANS. There are other reasons as well. If there is any problematic behavior going on I suggest you see our dispute resolution procedure and if you think that anything constitutes serious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA then to bring it up at the personal attack notice board or at the admin notice board. One finaly point- being called a sockpuppet are about par for the course when dealing with problems and random junk said on the internet is unlikely to alter your "reputation" anyways so it may be best to have a thick skin about it. I hope this helps. JoshuaZ 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a moral person, accusations of being a liar cut me to the quick. I can put up with being called an idiot, aggressive or overbearing. One thing I do not do is lie. I'll be honest with you: I know who User:Mikebe is. We agree on some things, not on others. If I had been asked whether I knew him or not, I would have answered truthfully. But no-one ever did ask. Can you say that no other contributors are personally acquainted?

As a pretty serious beer writer, I think I DO have a reputation to worry about. I've spent 15 years slowly gaining people's respect. Accusations like this could damage it. My email id is also patto1ro - it doesn't take a genius to work out that the patto1ro on the wikipedia is the same person.

Look at our posts: they aren't written in the same style (I can write much better) and we don't even have the same nationalilty - I'm British and he is Dutch.

If Ozgood needs any more evidence of our duality, let him come to Amsterdam to meet us both in person. There is much Mike and I would like to discuss with him in greater detail.

I seek nothing more than an admission from Osgood that he was wrong about Mike and I being one person with two accounts. Is that so much to ask? If his accusation had been true, do you imagine that I would have made so much fuss?

I can accept my (mostly very accurate and well-researched) contributions being edited or removed. Attacks upon my integrity I cannot.Patto1ro 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other peoples comments

Regarding this edit, it is inappropriate to attribute statements to other people that they did not write. You created the impression that Mikebe had written that text which is not only not kosher, it's also bad form. If it was a joke, it's still inappropriate because you're essentially roping another user into your joke without their permission. Please don't do it again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was editing his own comment there, Chairboy. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blarg, you're right, I misread the diff. Sorry bout that! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go

That should say it. This may take some time to work out but it would be deeply appreciated if you would stay and continue to help out on the articles. I don't know much about the entire beer matter but am more than willing to learn and do what I can to assist. (Oh, incidentally, I did end up deciding there was enough for checkuser and it seemed to clear the two of you). JoshuaZ 16:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

Patto1ro, I apologize for accusing you of sockpuppetry. With or without the purported checkuser JoshuaZ alludes to, I realize you two are likely not the same person. Please accept my apology. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious behaviour

Thank you for displaying such gracious behaviour towards others on the Altbier talk page, in the face of others acting less than gracious to you. KP Botany 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homebrew challenge

I don't think I can get anything turned out by the first week of May, but I might brew one or more of those recipes up for my own benefit. I've been meaning to do a porter.

Two things which I think need clarification for authenticity's sake, both to do with Loftus. First, are those mash temperatures he lists the temperature of the water before it goes into the mash tun or the temperature in the tun? If the latter, they strike me as awfully high...

Second, when he talks about pure cultures and how well the beer keeps -- I'm not certain about this, but it sounds more like that's a mixed Brettanomyces/Saccharomyces culture than just a blend of Saccharomyces strains; this fits in with what I've read about British beers of that period having some Brett character. Any input?

It's a shame I didn't find out about this sooner...I was in Amsterdam for the weekend just two weeks ago. --Stlemur 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it´s a shame that you didn´t find out about the challenge earlier.

I´m sure that the temperatures given by Loftus are for the water before it was added to the grain. If you look at the sample "Brewhouse Journal" entry he gives on page 42 it states "Temp of Liquor".

My understanding is that many 19th century yeast strains were a mixture of Brettanomyces and Saccharomyces. In othere cases, while the primary strain may have been Saccharomyces the storage vats were infected with Brettanomyces. In any case, matured beer always contained Brettanomyces. You can read more about the topic here:

http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerale.htm#sykes http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerale.htm#hind http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/bret1904.pdf

Even though you may be too late for the competition, I would still be really interested to try what you brew. Patto1ro 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting statement on page 315 of the Clausen text: "Most of the difficulties connected with conditioning the beer can doubtless be avoided, as well as the work done for this purpose, such as rolling the casks." When I worked for Courage I can remember being told how the barrels of Courage Russian Stout needed to be kicked around the brewery yard once every few weeks. I always wondered why they needed to do that.

Yeah, "taking the casks out for a walk". It helps avoid stuck fermentation. I'm not entirely certain why it works, but it does; compare Yorkshire Squares.

I'm hoping to have a go at at least one porter next week, depending on whether my local homebrew store stocks enough brown malt at once. Once it gets brewed, it should be ready to go in two weeks. --Stlemur 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spelling correction

licence and license are both acceptable spellings in all dictionaries.

In British English both spellings exist but mean something different: licence is a noun, license a verb.Patto1ro 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam visit

Hi Ron. I've sent you an email about being in Amsterdam for the weekend during the marathon. Friday evening would be possible if we don't get into a session. I'm thinking three drinks would be my max.

I'm looking at some of the pubs on your website. The big names are Gollem, Belgigue, De Wildeman and Arendsnest and I'd like to cover all of them at some time during my visit.

I've only been to 'Dam once before and I wasn't knowledgeable about beer back then so Chrissie and I spent most of our time in bars in Jordaan and along Prinsengracht drinking keg pils and singing loudly! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pale ale

The definition we are working with on the Pale ale article is that these are beers which use pale malts. I notice you have removed a number of beer styles which use pale malts but - if I understand your comment correctly - are not "pale" to the view. As you well know most pale ales are actually quite amber in colour so in theory nearly all the beers we discuss on that article could be removed! Unless you have a particularly strong disagreement I'd like to restore the article so that we can usefully and helpfully discuss beers made from pale malts all in one place. Warm regards. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of beer

Hi there—I'd certainly not like to step on anyone's toes in wading into an article as interesting as this one, but I really don't think that Industrial Revolution section is written in an encyclopedic format. There's too much of a personal voice in there, and while I really like the information it presents, it feels strangely out of place. I had a go at editing it, and posted on the discussion page about how we might try to work the good information that's in there into the article in a little bit more of a formal tone. What're your thoughts on this? Voxish (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

In a recent edit to the page Beer, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. I believe that American English is long established for this article and "ize" is proper American English and I understand not uncommon variation in British English as well, though I may be wrong on the second point. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flavour of English

(moved from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)

The page I changed used a mixture of British and American spellings. As the the older versions of the article appeared to be in British English, that's the version I standardised upon. I thought that's the way it worked when the subject wasn't more obviously connected with the USA or Britain. This has come up for discussion before with regard to the Beer page and the agreement was to stick with British English. Look at the discussion page: it says in a header that the article is in British English. I was just trying to make the page consistent, as the worst possible situation is the article having a mixture of the two spellings.Patto1ro (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If British English is the earlier version than we should use British English, I'll go back and take a more detailed look. As for earlier discussions, please provide links or diffs.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look on the beer discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer. Clearly says in the header that the article is in British English. This section specifically discusses which spelling the article uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer#Language_.26_spelling

I apologize for not noticing this earlier. I went back and looked at the earliest version in history and the discussion is correct in that the earliest version uses Brit. Eng. flavour rather than Am. Eng. flavor. In the future you may want to consider using an edit summary that better explains the change as the summary spelling often means the editor is unaware of either the MOS or the American spelling or both. Thanks for clarifying this issue with me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American barleywines: why repeatedly delete new entries to this section?

Looking over the history of this page, it appears you've deleted several attempted additions to the section listing examples of American barleywines, citing "enough US examples" as the reason for their deletion. My general question is "Why?" One would think that an encyclopedic list of examples of the style would only add to the quality and utility of this article. How does removing legitimate style examples improve the quality of the article? Moreover, there are currently twelve examples of English Barleywines and nine examples of American barleywines in the article. Is it your contention that there should be more examples of English barleywines in the article? If so, what is your rationale?

More specifically, I see you removed my addition of Old Ruffian the last time I placed it in the article. That particular barleywine belongs in ANY discussion of American barleywines. That's not a matter of my personal preference (it's certainly not my favorite brew). But Old Ruffian IS the most widely available, best-reviewed American barleywine currently in production (see beeradvocate.com and/or ratebeer.com for evidence of these facts).

It could be argued, then, that Old Ruffian is THE seminal example of an American barleywine right now, which would almost mandate its appearance in any discussion/list of examples of the style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGADawgGuy (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I remove new American examples of Barley Wine is because that's what was agreed after a discussion between editors. If some control isn't exercised people keep adding their favourite and before you know it there are 20 or 30 examples. If you think Old Ruffian has to be mentioned, then replace one of the other American examples with it.Patto1ro (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and appreciate that there is a risk that people will continually add their personal favorites to a list like this. But, seriously, I didn't add Old Ruffian because I particularly love it. I added it because it is, according to multiple sources, probably the best-known, most widely available, and best-reviewed American barleywine at present.

A separate issue, in my view, is why eight examples of US barleywine is "enough," while there are currently twelve examples of English barleywine. I actually prefer English barleywine to the hop-heavy American stuff, but I think there's room from a more equitably constructed list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGADawgGuy (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flip side: why do you need 20 examples for a style that's mostly the same color, same mouthfeel, similar strength, narrow range of primary flavors, not very historical... --Stlemur (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that most drinkers of barleywine -- at least those who have sampled multiple brands or variations of it -- will strongly disagree with your assessment that barleywine have "mostly the same color, same mouthfeel, similar strength, narrow range of primary flavors," and are "not very historical." Regardless, it would appear that we've reached an agreeable compromise on the matter at hand.UGADawgGuy (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 12 British examples are too many, too. A limit of 8 per country seems fair enough to me. We really don't want to go back to the old situation where there were dozens of examples per style.Patto1ro (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer and BJCP comment removal

Hi Ron. I'm not a fan of the BJCP, but I think we do need to be comprehensive and truthful in an encyclopedic article on the development of beer styles. The significant figures in the unhealthy obsession with beer style in America are Michael Jackson, Fred Eckhardt and BJCP. American-style cooker cutter brewpubs (which are present now in increasing numbers in Europe - I found one in Prague of all places!) use BJCP style guides as the basis for the descriptions of their beers, and the template for what they will offer people. You and I may not like that, but it is fact and should be reported.

I was looking at your website today as I was sprucing up the serving temperature section of the Beer article. I so wanted to use your section on serving temperature as a reference, but I know that would be against Wiki policy, and lead to an edit war! But I did allow what you had written to inform what I was writing. I think it's an improvement on what was there before! Warm regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted my wording slightly, and I will add later a few words about the controversial nature of the BJCP when I get a good source. SilkTork *^YES! 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reversion?

Why the reversion on the stout article? The lead sentence is awkward, and doesn't list all of the main ingredients in a stout/porter, which are both ales. Listing both malt and roasted barley is redundant. While not all barley used in porter is by necessity malted or roasted, it suffices to say that malted barley, hops, ale yeast, and water are what makes a stout. Further depth could be added in the main article. -76.21.103.36 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have accidentally removed a legitimate edit. My apologies. I was attempting to clean up multiple pages which had been vandalised. Patto1ro (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British?

Hi, had a glance at Beer, ale and Malt Liquor: old British beer styles, and while it's doubtless your ambition to expand it, currently it seems to be English beer styles. Perhaps that would be worth clarifying, or if you keep the title, some mention of the distinctive Scottish approach would be appropriate. In passing, I noticed the mention of McMullen's and the unidentified image which reminded me of that brewery, but presumably is where you worked in Newark. A title would be nice. Anyway, it's a long time since I was in Hertford so did some investigating: the good news is that the building is still there,[1] rather to my surprise. The bad news is that they seem to have moved out to newer premises and sold the land for a supermarket,[2] but there does seem to be a possibility that the building will be retained.[3] Rather a nice red brick building, can't recall much about the beer. . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I can claim no expertise or recent experience with beer, and bow to your suggestion that Scottish beers are essentially just a variation on the English types. As you note, the naming was clearly different, with mild and bitter unknown, and the standard designations light and heavy – hence my liking for dark light, which would equate to your fondness for dark mild. In the '60s this was joined by draught export, and of course lager. Perhaps a bigger distinction was the traditional use of hydraulic delivery through taps, not handpumps in the English manner. With the coming of CO2 pressurised delivery that distinction disappeared, and handpumps were introduced into Scottish pubs in the wake of the enthusiasm for CAMRA's activities. Don't know whether that difference in delivery method affected the style of beer at all. Not sure how you'd research it, but a brief statement of the different naming conventions would at least indicate that Scotland had not been forgotten! Many thanks, dave souza, talk 11:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter (beer)

I just fixed up your references a bit to:

Remove the duplication
Remove the "according to..." in the article (the reference gives that)
Use Template:Cite which automatically formats it all for you in the references list.

Hope this is OK. Many thanks for adding the references. SimonTrew (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BJCP

What is this anger you have toward the BJCP? Do you care to engage in an intelligent conversation or is your argument so weak that you can't do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJCP (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beer style. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. BJCP (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Reference

Please provide an ISBN for "Brown Beer" so that I can check it out. It would appear that this source is wrong, as Porter is still being produced by several small breweries in England. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Brown Beer" doesn't have an ISBN, I'm afraid. No Porter was brewed in Britain for a couple of decades. When Michael Jackson wrote his "World Guide to Beer" in the mid-1970's, no brewery in Britain or Ireland produced a Porter. The first revival Porter was, I believe brewed by Pehrhos Court in 1979. Since then many other small breweries have started brewing Porters. Whitbread stopped brewing their Porter in 1940. I know because I've seen their brewing records.Patto1ro (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might get some grief over Wikipedia:V#SELF with regard to Brown Beer & your other books; but, you can cite the Whitbread brewing log directly as a primary source. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may see I've added some facts, so that the article is now correct. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Might you be able to lend a hand with the discussion at the talk page of Betty Logan (talk)? All self-explanatory. And looking back at her talk page discussion this is a pattern. Everything is now even sourced, and she continues to delete my entries. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest round of reflexive reverting

Quadrupel

Could Mr Pattinson explain why he considers the links to be irrelevant? The mere presence of a link has no prejudice with regard to any ideoliogical axe-grinding. A "see also" link could be a "contrast" as much as a "compare". 1Z (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could Mr. Jones stop addressing me in such a condescending way and show a little civility? As for "compare" OK. Let's add links to Gose, Lichtenhainer, Koyt Mumme and Svenskol as well. They're all beer styles we could compare La Trappe Quadrupel with. Now a link to La Trappe Dubbel or La Trappe Tripel might make some sense. But to Tripel in general. That's like adding a link to Stout on the Tetley Mild page.Patto1ro (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since La Trappe Q is not the only Q. and since many of the Q's feature in ranges which also include a T and a D,

it makes perfect sense to to link to T and D. 1Z (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Reverts

You recently reverted some changes I made ([4], [5], [6], [7]). Was it the link added by User talk:Oshcoshbigosh that I was moving to an External links section that you don't think should belong, or was it the sections that I added/renamed? Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 07:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Oshcoshbigosh is one of a string of sockpuppets that have vandalised beer articles adding spam links. That's what I was removing.Patto1ro (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 07:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This guy [8] is reverting all your edits. Do you know who this might be, if it might be a sock of someone? Triplestop x3 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He'll be one in a long line of sockpuppets who have vandalised the beer articles. There are too many to list them all here. The user behind all of them is probably Goethean, a lunatic who has a weird obsession with me.Patto1ro (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist spammer

Take a look at WP:ANI#www.europeanbeerguide.net. I hope this puts an end to the silliness. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India Pale Ale Rollback

Hi. You'll notice that I removed your recent edits to India Pale Ale. I did this because the information you added was unsourced, except for what you noted as a "personal interview." Please see WP:OR and WP:PSTS. If you have a published source for your information, please feel free to reinstate your edit. Prof. Mc (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC) I'll check and see if it's mentioned in Mitch's book.213.126.72.234 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Patto1ro. 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, Patto1ro. 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]

Spezial listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spezial. Since you had some involvement with the Spezial redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 8 January 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]