User talk:Sbettwy

Image tagging for Image:ALB.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ALB.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARIZIONA STATE LAND COMMISSIONER

We use both upper and lower case letters in article titles. Fan-1967 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AJB.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:AJB.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. BigDT 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ALB.jpg requires attention

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:ALB.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ALB.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:ALB.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:AWB obit picture Bettwy Andy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AWB obit picture Bettwy Andy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Wilson Bettwy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Andrew Wilson Bettwy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Sbettwy/Daniel William Benninghoff has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel William Benninghoff, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. Petan-Bot (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel William Benninghoff. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Candid shot of ALB walking on Phoenix sidewalk circa 1954.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Candid shot of ALB walking on Phoenix sidewalk circa 1954.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Wilson Bettwy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Andrew Wilson Bettwy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Wilson Kennerly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuma (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) 11:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Bettwy (December 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary Bettwy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

j⚛e decker ^talk 03:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sbettwy, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! j⚛e decker ^talk 03:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Bettwy (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MarkTraceur was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary Bettwy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MarkTraceur (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mary Bettwy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mary Bettwy, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mary Bettwy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mary Bettwy, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mary Bettwy

Hello, Sbettwy. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mary Bettwy".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Bettwy (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary Bettwy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrew Jackson Bettwy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nineteenth Amendment. 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) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary Bettwy (February 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

"County recorder" is not an office that gives a person an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the coverage of her does not nationalize in a substantive enough way to make her the exception to the rule. All of the non-local citations here are to brief blurbs which mention her solely in the context of having appointed her electoral opponent as her deputy -- which is not a claim of encyclopedic notability in and of itself, and the coverage isn't substantial since none of it goes anywhere beyond blurb length. There's still nothing here which counts as a reason why she would warrant an encyclopedia article -- and given that the creator's username strongly implies a direct family relationship with the subject, they are advised to familiarize themselves with our conflict of interest rules as well: writing an article about your own relative is not the way to get that person in here.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary Bettwy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have different inclusion standards for women than we do for men, or different inclusion standards for Latinos or African Americans than we do for white people — if the exact same claim of notability, and the exact same sourcing, had been brought to an article about a white man, it still would have been declined as not enough. Yes, Wikipedia is aware of the systemic bias problem, but it's not an intentional bias that Wikipedia is actively perpetrating of its own accord by maintaining double standards — it's an accidental by-product of the fact that until very recently, women and people of colour were at a systemic disadvantage in society when it came to becoming as famous as white men who were doing the same things. And we have numerous projects on here which attempt to rectify that imbalance, and I'm an active member of several of them — but the answer is not to create special lower standards by which a woman or a person of colour can get into Wikipedia for things that wouldn't ordinarily get a person into an encyclopedia, just because they were women or people of colour: the answer is to dig harder into finding the many women and people of colour who were doing encyclopedic things we just haven't documented on here yet. I'm sorry you're disappointed, but this isn't an issue of gender or anti-Latino bias: the article just isn't claiming or sourcing anything that would get any other person into an encyclopedia in and of itself, regardless of their gender or ethnic background. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I made three points in my response to you. You conceded one of them (that gender bias is a recognized systemic problem at Wikipedia), and did not respond to the other two (that the historical context of women and minorities, especially female minorities, is not being taken into account, and that the conflict-of-interest policy is inherently biased against females and minorities). Perhaps you concede those points as well. You have not explained why being the first female Hispanic elected to office in 1930s Arizona is not notable. You also trivialize the nationwide attention she got when she first took office as reporting on “something slightly unusual” that happened in Arizona, but your argument is conclusory and internally illogical, since, if it was only slightly unusual, it would not have been reported so widely. You also summarily dismiss “County Recorder” as an unimportant office, without explaining how you reached that conclusion, and you state that that “Political almanacs don't help the case”; I am not sure you carefully considered that the almanacs are cited to show that the office of County Recorder was important enough to be included each year. The opinion letters from the state Attorney General are also intended as evidence of the importance of her office. You summarily dismiss the citation to Find-a-Grave, but I am not sure that you saw that the citation is to primary evidence (a copy of her baptismal certificate), showing that she was born in Mexico, to substantiate that she was Hispanic, since she did not have a Hispanic sounding name when she was elected. You adamantly insist in no uncertain terms that she is not notable, but I received earlier comments from editors who suggested that she might be notable. Is it possible to request that your colleagues be polled for consensus on this point? Sbettwy (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I don't even understand your claim that the conflict of interest rules are in any way biased against females and minorities — you've asserted that, but you haven't even attempted to show how that's the case. I can't address that until I know what your argument in that regard even is.

The local (city, town, county) level of politics is not a topic of inherently encyclopedic interest in most cases. We do allow some people at that level of government into Wikipedia based on certain standards (e.g. mayors of major cities, but not mayors of small towns; city councillors who can be really well-sourced as having become nationally recognized far beyond the norm for that role, but not all city councillors, etc.) — but it's not a level of government at which a person is automatically an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article just because they existed. And the "national" coverage you showed does not demonstrate that she achieved any level of fame outside of her own county: not a single one of them contains any more than a blurb's worth of information about her — and even if any of them had been more substantive, our WP:BLP1E rules would still apply since every single one of them covers her in the context of a single event which carries no encyclopedic significance in its own right.

We still can't base an article on user-generated sources like findagrave, because user-generated sources can be misrepresented. And we can't base an article on directory or almanac sources, because all they do is list her name, while failing to contain any substantive information about her. And we can't base an article on private correspondence, even if it's archived in a fonds somewhere — we have to base it on secondary sources analyzing the importance of that correspondence. And as far as any prior commenter on your draft said anything at all about her potential notability, what they said is that the sources weren't showing it adequately — if they had been satisfied that the notability and sourcing were where they needed to be, the article would have been approved and I wouldn't have had to comment at all. So no, what I said is not in any conflict with what anybody else said either.

Again, what you're missing is that I'm personally a member of more than group that has a systemic underrepresentation issue on Wikipedia, and I have family connections to two more — I'm fully aware of the problem, don't need lessons about it from anyone who thinks I'm less aware of it and less personally affected by it than I really am, and I actively participate in several of the projects that we already have in place to rectify it. But the problems that exist have nothing to do with our inclusion and sourcing standards being biased at all, but are a factor of our userbase not being demographically representative of the general population — so the solution isn't to create a special class of inclusion standards by which women or people of colour can get into Wikipedia on less substantive notability and less substantive sourcing than a white man could, it's to identify the many women and people of colour who are still missing even though they do fully meet our existing standards.

And finally, I'm not the only editor who declined the draft — and I'm really not that interested in being held personally responsible for, or asked to answer for, everybody else's decisions too. I can speak only for myself, and am not responsible for any of the other three editors — so I'm not particularly interested in getting drawn into an extended debate where I have to personally justify every editor's prior decisions about it. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sbettwy. 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]

Your draft article, Draft:Mary Bettwy

Hello, Sbettwy. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Mary Bettwy".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sbettwy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sbettwy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Wilson Kennerly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuma. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]