User talk:QueryOne

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your judgement is flawed. Be careful how easily you toss around the claim of vandalism. There is no source for that assertion in that article, and therefore no way to know whether or not it is true. You also might want to refresh your knowledge of the term edit war, because you have unjustifiably started one.

You are removing valid content from a featured article without ovvering and actual valid explanation other than you didn't like the opinion and didn't think it was notable. That is vandalism, plain and simple, and it is not an edit war when reverting such inappropriate actions. If you felt it was inaccurate, then start a talk page discussion, but don't just butcher an article because you have nothing better to do. I have now properly corrected the article after double checking your claim its wrong. It was correct, however the review it came from has since been removed from the article. Now go learn how to write a valid edit summary and not a false one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cut the condescending comments. I know how to write a valid edit summary. Such claims as those need to be sourced, maybe you haven't learned that yet.

Then next time, trying writing one, instead of falsely claiming content is being removed for being "unnotable" then reverting its restoration with a bullshit copy/paste of my edit summary thereby calling my edit vandalism. And cut out the shitty attitude. You randomly edited an article as a new account, removing content for an invalid reason. Next time try actually following WP:BRD and learn some WP:CIVILity instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Continue to post messages here if you'd like, but I will no longer be returning to this page to read them. I am editing within Wikipedia policies. You will find that you will get along better with other editors if you do the same, especially ceasing the edit wars, and especially the profanity. Once you do, perhaps other editors will be able to take your pompous lecturing regarding civility with a grain of seriousness. Goodbye.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Promised Land (TV series). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calling this vandalism is extremely inappropriate, as is claiming you were "reverting" when you were fixing a typo. If you intend to return purely to be disruptive and acting in such a rude, inappropriate fashion, please go reread WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone any differently than you have attacked me. You are the one that that began throwing the term vandalism around so loosely, so please go re-read the WP:CIVIL. Thanks.

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Touched by an Angel, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not remove validly sourced content from articles while falsely claiming it is not source. Also, cease your wikihounding and WP:POINTy continued disruption. The only thing it will do in the end is get you blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced. But I will re-edit the article at a later date.

It is sourced. Source is sitting right there. If you try to remove the statement again or otherwise further continue being disruptive, you will be reported for blocking. Your only purpose here seems to be randomly following me around and being a pest, which makes me suspect you are just another sock of one of the usual disruptive folks who do such things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was not sourced. You removed other unsourced content from the article, and I have the right to exercise the same kind of judgement. If you continue to follow my edits and revert them without justifiable cause, you will be reported for blocking as well.

The sentence IS SOURCED. I removed unsourced content, I did not remove validly sourced content like you continue to do. The sentence is sourced by source #3. Per Wikipedia's practices, the source appears at the end of the several sentences it sources, not on every last sentence as they are back to back. No one is "following your edits" as you aren't doing any editing, only apparently randomly following me, reverting or vandalizing articles I work on, then trying to "explain" it with obviously false statements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Eight Miles High

Hi! I would ask you to please refrain from removing the raga rock label from the "Eight Miles High" infobox. Contrary to your edit summary, this genre is FULLY supported within the article text with reliable third party references. The Byrds' biographer Johnny Rogan has cited the song as an early example of raga rock and musicologist Jonathan Bellman has also noted it's importance in the development of the genre (see references 7 & 8). In addition, in his book The Dawn of Indian music in the West, author Peter Lavezzoli has noted the influence of Ravi Shankar and other Indian classical musicians in the droning quality of the song's vocal melody and its lead guitar motif (see reference 16). Furthermore, the song was actually responsible for the coining of the phrase "raga rock" in the first place, as detailed with full supporting refs in the "Release and legacy" section of the article. Indeed, given these credentials, it is hard to imagine a song that is more raga rock than "Eight Miles High"! Thus, removing "raga rock" from the infobox due to a lack of sources is clearly an inappropriate thing to do. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Associating indian music with rock is a stretch. "Eight Miles High" is a great song, and has no discernable indian influence. Nevertheless, it's not a big deal to me. So I won't revert it, at least for the time being.

I have reverted your changing of the genres in the "Eight Miles High" article again. While I hate to seem overbearing about this, designating the song as folk rock is, I believe, inaccurate and not supported by reliable sources on the subject or the article's inline refs. Yes, The Byrds were a folk rock band when they started but "Eight Miles High" was such a quantum leap forward for the group that they left folk rock far behind. To use another 1960s example, The Beatles were a band who played beat music but "Tomorrow Never Knows" was a huge leap forward into psychedelia and no-one would ever class the song as beat music.

If you can find a reliable third party ref that supports designating "Eight Miles High" as folk rock, then please do add it to the article but I have to say, in over 20 years of reading about the music of The Byrds, I have never, ever heard of "Eight Miles High" being described as folk rock. I'm really trying to assume good faith here but your repeated attempts at altering the genres in the infobox of this and a few other articles (as detailed above) makes me doubt your motives, I'm afraid to say. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And, might I add, the article itself, in the lede, mentions the influence of Ravi Shankar and Indian music, and this is sourced with three references. It's actually well-known that Eight Miles High was based on Coltrane's "India", itself influenced by Indian music. As well, there's the oft-cited story of The Byrds on tour prior to the recording of "Eight Miles High" listening to a tape of Coltrane and Shankar. The Byrds pioneered folk-rock and recorded songs that could be described as straight folk but "Eight Miles High" is not folk or folk-rock. Would you describe the songs on Sweetheart of the Rodeo as folk-rock? "Eight Miles High" was actually the band's first step away from that genre. freshacconci talktalk 11:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Walk Away Renée has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Do not accuse other editors of vandalism when the edits are legitimate. If you disagree with the edit, take it to the talk page and comment on the edits not the editor. Please always assume good faith when editing freshacconci talktalk 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In conjunction with this warning from Freshacconci, the above comments from Collectonian, and my own my earlier message, I would ask you to please refrain from arbitrarily deleting information from articles when said info is clearly supported by reliable third party references. I left a message earlier about your deleting of genres from the "Eight Miles High" article and now you've done the same thing on The Left Banke article and "Walk Away Renée". The Allmusic entry for The Left Banke (which is cited in The Left Banke article) clearly states that the band are a baroque pop band. Likewise, the naming of "Walk Away Renée" as a barogue pop song is supported in the article by a reference. If you disagree with this classification then please open a discussion on the relevant talk page, don't just go deleting information when it is fully supported as per WP:CITE and WP:V. Wikipedia articles are not really the place for your own personal opinion on such matters - to quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Your contributions are very welcome on Wikipedia but please try to make constructive edits, assume good faith, and refrain from banding the word vandalism about when that clearly isn't what's happening. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems to vary depending on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueryOne (talk • contribs)

My comment above still applies, as does Kohoutek1138's. Consider this a third warning for not assuming good faith. freshacconci talktalk 02:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You may assume that my edits are in good faith as well. And don't speak on behalf of other contributors please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueryOne (talk • contribs)

Actually, I can assume you are not acting in good faith given the series of warnings on this page and your unrepentant attitude. And I'm not speaking on "behalf" of Kohoutek1138; I am agreeing with him. freshacconci talktalk 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I will edit as I see fit, as long as I am within the guidelines, and since you won't provide the same courtesy, don't expect me to make the assumption that your edits are in good faith. Either source them adequately (in my view) or the guidelines allow me edit them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueryOne (talk • contribs)

Well, you are actually editing outside the guidelines. The onus is on you to provide reasonable rationale to remove items and to provide sources to add items. We also operate using consensus. If you feel something needs changing, you take it to the talk page and discuss it. At least two editors disagree with your changes: you don't just "edit as [you]see fit". This is Wikipedia, not your personal website. You don't keep reverting others' edits and accuse them of vandalism simply because you disagree with them. You have three warnings for not acting in good faith. You have pushed the edge of the three edit rule. You have not assumed good faith, which is in the guidelines. And you don't provide adequate edit summaries, which is in the guidelines. And you don't sign your posts, which is in the guidelines. You mention following guidelines and I've provided some instances where you are not following rules and guidelines. Violating the 3RR rule (i.e. edit warring) can get you blocked. Please operate within the rules and guidelines. I'll provide some links below which give you the basics of Wikipedia. Please study them. And sign your posts. freshacconci talktalk 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and the condescending comments, but I don't need either.

You'll only have yourself to blame when you get yourself blocked. freshacconci talktalk 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Such fretting over raga rock. Please.

May 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Eight Miles High has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 20:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alan Merrill, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to J. G. Ballard. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 11:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Walk Away Renee has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Please see edit summaries here freshacconci talktalk 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to contribute to articles like everyone else.

Block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.}} If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your contribution to articles is welcome, but you must abide by community policies and practices. You have been advised above about consensus processes and cautioned that your behavior might lead to a block. You were explicitly told, "You don't keep reverting others' edits and accuse them of vandalism simply because you disagree with them", but you have persisted in precisely that behavior, as recently as 9 June. If you disagree with other contributors about the content of articles, you may engage them in conversation at their talk pages or at article's talk pages. If you cannot reach consensus, you may consult dispute resolution for some suggestions for further steps. But continued tendentiousness and disruptive editing will likely lead to a lengthier block of your account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing disruptive editing. Other editors happen to disagree with me and then they complain about my edits to administrators. Sorry. QueryOne (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)QueryOne

July 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Mazzy Star. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It wasn't meant to be controversial. Just fact. QueryOne (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)QueryOne

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to I Feel Fine, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Red Rose Speedway, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the existing genres on Red Rose Speedway, nor most recordings.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Red Rose Speedway, you may be blocked from editing. Radiopathy •talk• 01:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "disruptive editing". Don't be so dramatic.

February 2012

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at And Your Bird Can Sing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Level four warning since you've already been blocked for this once already. Radiopathy •talk• 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change anything was sourced, and I looked to ensure that these genres hadn't been addressed on the discussion page. As such, they don't appear to be genres that are a result of consensus. Can you explain why this is a problem? Thanks. ~~QueryOne

No answer? Just as I thought. :) ~~QueryOne.

September 2012

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Strawberry Fields Forever, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 02:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Eight Miles High, you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci talktalk 17:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not disruptive editing just because you happen to disagree. I will go back and change it later.

It's disruptive because you are changing sourced content and adding unsourced opinions and failing to discuss this on the talk pages. Keep it up and you will get blocked again. freshacconci talktalk 14:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not changing sourced content.

You removed "raga rock" from the genres in "Eight Miles High" which is clearly cited in the introduction. You also added unsourced genres to "Strawberry Fields Forever". freshacconci talktalk 08:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have overlooked those.

It's happened to all of us. freshacconci talktalk 13:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This person needs reporting to the Administrators' noticeboard in order to get them permanently banned. Look at this talk page -- the whole page is nothing but multiple warnings about disruptive editing. This is just a trouble maker who is nothing but a hinderance to the Wikipedia community and the encyclopedia itself. There's just no reasoning with them. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Beatles for Sale, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Please avoid self-referencing Wikipedia as well. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, genres in music articles should strictly be added as a result of some reliable, secondary source verifying them, never the result of a discussion among editors of what seems appropriate. That would be a POV issue. Use consensus only when there are conflicting sources. Genres are a matter of aesthetic opinion, not reporting facts, so the guideline of verifiability and not truth holds more water: what is believed to be true by editors should be disregarded for what's supported by the most credible experts on the topic. In short, if you do good research on a topic, the appropriate sources will come to you naturally. If you look for them specifically and exclusively edit genres on Wikipedia, you will most likely be genre warring. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ridernyc (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry. Didn't know genres had to be discussed.

The Birds

Your recent editing history at The Birds shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. You have already put in the same edit three times in the last two months on this page. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please refrain and discuss. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. This is just an example of why Wikipedia is not viewed as a credible source. Go ahead a continue to insist on printing incorrect information.

I see you're back again, putting in the same edit for the fourth time, and again refusing to discuss it except for the unsigned brief, vague entry weeks ago right here. Stop your WP:edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not WP:edit warring in any manner at all. I am merely either adding additional information or correcting misleading or wrong information. I am sorry that you are interpreting in such a way.

And now you've done it a fifth time. That's called edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, now you've done it a sixth time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

So have you. Kindly stop edit warring. QueryOne (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Electric Light Orchestra

Hi. Just to note that I have reverted your addition of a number of acts to the ELO info box. These acts are only associated with ELO by way of Jeff Lynne, not directly. George Harrison, for instance, never performed with ELO and a member of ELO never "became part of" George Harrison (unlike, say, Black Sabbath). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You have again added additional acts to the ELO info box. Instead of edit warring could you explain on the talk page in what way ELO are associated with George Harrison, without being by way of Jeff Lynne? I don't recall ELO ever playing or recording with Harrison. Thanks.

The association with Jeff Lynne is sufficient. And please stop the edit warring.

So ELO is associated with everyone that any member of ELO has ever worked with? This could be a very crowded info box. What about all Roy Wood's bands? And his work with Bo Diddley? Bev Bevan has also played with Paul Weller. And what about Violinski? Does Dave Edmunds not get a mention? Hugh McDowell has worked with Saint Etienne. Louis Clark did a lot of work with Royal Philharmonic Orchestra too. And that's just a start.... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that everyone that any member of ELO has ever worked with is associated with the group. You brought up that ridiculous assertion. Don't be unreasonable.

So in what way are the acts you are insisting on having in the article associated to ELO, more so than all the ones I listed above? If you refuse to explain then I can only cast about looking for reasons for you. Wikipedia works by discussion. Insisting on reverting an addition, and then refusing to discuss it is not helpful and is disruptive behaviour. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a section on the ELO talk page for you. Please explain your thinking there. If you choose to ignore this I will revert what you have added, on the grounds that you are in breech of WP:3RR, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You do not get to force an addition into an article and refuse to discuss it when requested. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You also reverted an addition on Amy Macdonald. Could you explain why a forum post, a restricted TV streaming that will expire shortly, and a source that doesn't even mention Macdonald, anywhere, are appropriate sources for cites? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an answer for this question? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

Well since you seem a little shy of answering, shall I assume that your revert was to make a point, and therefore also disruptive? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So I have reverted your edit for the above reasons. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll edit for the reason I always do; to improve the article. Don't pretend that you can give me direction.

I am not giving you direction, I am trying to engage you in discussion in establishing consensus, a core Wikipedia policy you seem determined to ignore. Since you've refused to discuss, I have reverted your disruptive edit for the reasons outlined on the talk page. It is against the clear guidelines regarding the info box. You are already engaged in edit warring on other articles, so further edit warring on this will most probably result on you being blocked again. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rupert Holmes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bubblegum pop

You have several times removed sourced material about the definition of bubblegum pop music. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Your latest edit summary stated: "Source doesn't reflect that POV". To avoid any further edit wars, I have added the relevant quote from the Jim Cooper/David Smay authoritative study of bubblegum music, Bubblegum Music is the Naked Truth, which clearly shows that the source does indeed reflect that viewpoint. If you have other reliable sources that add to, or disagree with, that definition, please let's talk about them. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

O.K. No problem.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)