User talk:SurreyJohn

Hi.can you help me?How do you become a WikiJanitor?What do you put in your user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuyBabbling (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on rufous-bellied thrush

Hi John, I'm OK with reverting that image from the article but maybe you missed that there is a bird inside the bird house and you can see it chilling out from the house entrance. The image shows how common these birds are because is relatively easy to get to see one living in a bird house. --Tmpsantos (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coppelia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:30 Great Piano Classics Album Cover.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:30 Great Piano Classics Album Cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Lemur's Park was accepted

Lemur's Park, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Coin945 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lemurs Park.jpeg

Again, thank you for your work on Lemurs' Park. I had a question about the image you uploaded, File:Lemurs Park.jpeg. Apparently you created this from a picture you took while at the park. Ideally, we do not create logos for commercial or government entities, and that's what this image strikes me as. I was wondering, instead, if you had a more general picture of the park, showing a sample of what it looks like. For example, consider the image used in the infobox on the Marojejy National Park article. The title of the article clearly identifies the topic as "Lemurs' Park", so I think it would be more beneficial to use a photo of the park or maybe it's entrance gate (if applicable). – Maky ^« talk » 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I did originally add a picture of the park entrance sign, but it was disallowed (not that I agree it was fine art being publicly exhibited, but what the hell). This image is my own artistic creation, with one of my one lemur pictures from the park. There are deliberate similarities to the park sign, but it is not a copy. It was therefor allowed. All my other photos are lemurs and plants - no views! {SurreyJohn (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Hmmmm.... Did the entrance picture include the area around the entrance? That should be allowed. If anything email me (through the "Email this user" link on the left) and then after I reply, send me the photo so I can look at it. On Wikipedia, there is usually more than one opinion. Anyway, another possibility would be to use a high-quality photo of a lemur either at the park or a species known to be found at the park. I just don't think we should be using artwork in infoboxes, particularly if they look similar to the originals. – Maky ^« talk » 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Image I was using was the park's entrance sign (uploaded to UK site), the same sign as on [[1]], and similar to their website, but my photo was more square on with no surround. It was removed as it had artistic content (and so does yours)! I can email it you or try again, but I'm new here and dont want to start a war ;-) SurreyJohn (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the one I uploaded was fine was because I marked it as fair use. You probably uploaded yours as a work belonging to you. The logo that's there now is fine. However, it would be nice if we could get a picture of the park in general. That way it would more closely mirror many zoo articles, such as San Diego Zoo, Naples Zoo, Charles Paddock Zoo, etc. If you're not sure if your photo of the entrance would work, email me and I'll look at it. If we upload it with the proper permissions, it should be fine. As for starting wars... well, this is Wikipedia. There are some hard heads on here, and you just learn to work with them. Once you establish yourself, it will get easier. Too many people on here forget that they were noobs once, too. – Maky ^« talk » 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TripAdvisorLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TripAdvisorLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron, I've replied on your talk page SurreyJohn (Talk) 11:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox images

Thanks for your continued efforts to help add meaningful content to the lemur articles. However, when it comes to taxobox images, we only use one unless one photo cannot adequately illustrate the species. A common example for lemurs is sexual dichromatism–and then we usually try to find a good picture of both genders clearly displayed side-by-side. For the taxobox, we use the best picture available–one that shows off the entire body (not a head shot), is clear, and is high quality. We also don't replace existing taxobox images unless we have one that is clearly better than the existing image. And often, especially in the case of featured articles (such as Ring-tailed lemur) we suggest replacements first on the talk page.

Again, sorry if I'm coming across as a bad cop. I really do appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to contribute. Please keep making updates and I'll keep working with you on them. (And sorry for being so slow on my promised updates to Lemurs' Park. Real life is slowing me down.) – Maky ^« talk » 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm still learning, and it is frustrating! In case you hadn't noticed, the image is an "animated" GIF (2 frames), that I put a lot of effort into making to show front and side face. Perhaps you could see let me replace one of the other images of the lemur, since you have two very similar ones with the long tail, and this is a good muzzle shot. I dont like seeing my efforts wasted, but I do appreciate you improvements to the Lemurs' park. The table is nice, showing all 9 lemur species they have. I was also planning to make a GIF of a sifka dancing, which would be a valuable addition (different page). SurreyJohn (Talk) 15:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's been frustrating. It was very frustrating for me, too, when I started. For example, I submitted the current ring-tailed lemur photo in the taxobox for consideration in for a featured picture. Although it seemed perfect to me, high-resolution and all, the reviewers picked it apart pixel by pixel and basically said it was a piece of crap that wasn't worth considering. Every time I've tried to take better and better photos, addressing every point they make, they keep dismissing my work (very rudely) and delisting my nominations. So it happens to all of us. As for this particular image, I'm hard pressed to find a good use for it. The problem is that there are already excellent, very high resolution photos showing a ring-tailed lemurs face and muzzle. Although your animated GIF is very cool, it's not very high resolution, and you can't zoom in on it to study the nose or face, like you can with the others. (Remember, educational value is key here.) An animated GIF showing a sifaka "dance" (hop), however, would be very nice... at this point. Of course a high-resolution video would trump that easily, but at present, we don't have a good one showing that behavior. One thing to keep in mind with Wikipedia is that we favor better and better work. Even my own painstaking work (images and text) may someday be supplanted by superior work (and it has at times). Just keep trying. I'm going to help you as much as I can here. For example, I may try to get your photo of the Lemur Park sign reinstated. – Maky ^« talk » 15:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemurs' Park species list

By the way, where did you get the list of species for Lemurs' Park? Their website lists 7 specific species and then "Microcebus", which links to a page that mentions Microcebus rufus and Microcebus murinus. The guide "Lemurs of Madagascar" even mentions a single Propithecus diadema as being at the park. I can't find any mention of Cheirogaleus medius. Because we have to go by our sources, it's really important we find a reliable source to support this. Unfortunately, if things have changed recently (due to death or new acquisitions), we can't report it here until a reliable source notes it (e.g. their own website or a new edition of "Lemurs of Madagascar"). Reporting it from our own experiences is considered original research. – Maky ^« talk » 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The COLAS website ref (that you deleted) has 9 species, but doesn't list them (and they may have changed). TOTAL Madagascar was their other major sponsor, but I cant find anything from them. That's why I added some labeled photos taken from the park (it provided good evidence of whats there). You would have to be a genius to identify the fat tailed dwarf lemur from inside the bamboo though, so I see the problem. It was a new addition, still in a caged quarantine area so a citation will be impossible. The local guide (and our tour leader) both listed the lemur names precisely for me (as I was photographing them and writing a list), so I'm confident of the information. I appreciate references are important, but not essential (policy states only required if something is likely to be challenged ... and the photos are gps-tagged). SurreyJohn (Talk) 17:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE doesn't say that references are not essential. As you said, they're not needed for facts that are not likely to be challenged. For example, we can say in an article that the earth is round without a citation. This is because nearly everyone alive knows for a fact that the earth is round. However, saying that a facility in Madagascar has a particular species of lemur could easily be disputed. For that reason, a citation is required. Unfortunately, your own photographic evidence and notes from a tour guide do not count as a verifiable source, per WP:VERIFY. Instead, it counts as "original research" (under WP:OR). Although WP:CITE is a guideline, WP:VERIFY and WP:OR are policies. We can't force people to cite sources, but we do have the obligation and authority to take down information that is not verifiable.

Hopefully all that makes sense. But don't worry... things like WP:OR get even trickier! Consider what I went through a couple years ago: In trying to learn the true etymology of the term "lemur" (given there are many published sources that state without citation the supposed etymology), a friend and I discovered a published piece by Linneaus himself that contradicted everything that people had been saying and publishing. One would think that all I needed to do was cite Linneaus' original text and then I could disregard the other sources as incorrect. Not so. Because we had to go digging around in obscure publications from the 1700s and had to translate from the original Latin, it was considered "original research". Therefore we had to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal (which we did) in order to correctly state the etymology of the term "lemur". I sincerely hope you never stumble upon a case like this and have to struggle through it. – Maky ^« talk » 22:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a similar debate go on elsewhere! The policy states is several places "challenged or likely to be challenged", not "could be challenged". There's a big difference between something likely to happen, and simply the possibility of it happening. Are you really challenging they have a fat tailed lemur, and if so, are you suggesting removing the one lemur, all of them, or just adding a citation required? Its reported there are 9, so it makes good sense to list 9, not 8. SurreyJohn (Talk) 22:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still original research. I'm inclined to follow my sources, mention 9 species, and remain ambiguous about the nocturnal species. After all, that's what my sources do. In truth, it sounds like they have a bit of turnover—one source mentions one of their 9 species being a diademed sifaka, while another mentions "2 nocturnal" (while only discussing Microcebus rufus and Microcebus murinus). So what they had when you visited may not be what they have now. Again, I'm going to favor the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, not the ambiguous guideline WP:CITE. It all comes down to this: I have no verifiable source that supports the presence of Cheirogaleus medius, which if currently present could very well be any Cheirogaleus species given that they are cryptic species. Not only that, but Cheirogaleus medius isn't found near Tana, so any absolute identification would have to be based on genetic tests, which I doubt were carried out. Therefore, I am opting to remain ambiguous about the identity of the two nocturnal species. We could simply call them both "cheirogaleids", which is technically correct. That's what I was getting at—not simply changing the number to something the sources don't support. – Maky ^« talk » 08:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SurreyJohn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!!!

File:Flare Firer Awared.pdf	Flare Firer
	I know you reported to the wrong place, But you Still Fired a Flare On that user for a Admin to see what was up. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oplurus cuvieri subspecies

Hi SurreyJohn. Thanks for your message. I agree with you that the population on Grand Comoro Island doesn't warrant species status, i.e., "Oplurus comorensis". However, Angel believed that it did warrant subspecies status, when he named it Oplurus cuvieri comorensis. Savage recognized Angel's subspecies in 1952, as did Schlüter in 2013.

So, there is only one species, O. cuvieri, which has two subspecies: O. cuvieri cuvieri (the nominotypical subspecies) and O. cuvieri comorensis.

Please do add the IUCN information if you feel it will improve the article.

Regards, Lyttle-Wight (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:30 Great Piano Classics.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:30 Great Piano Classics.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 30 Great Piano Classics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 30 Great Piano Classics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30 Great Piano Classics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:30 Great Piano Classics.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:30 Great Piano Classics.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces

It seems to me that Geni.com which was cited as a reference in this article appears to have incorporated text from Wikipedia. The use of brackets around various names and words there appears to have been copied from Wikipedia's use of double brackets for wikilinks. In fact, the article at Geni.com even says, "Wikipedia: John Williams ( [April 15] , [1903] – [May 5] , [1983] ) was a [British] stage, film, and television actor." If it was copied from Wikipedia, it can't be used as a reference here in Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces#Sourcing problems for my comments on https://goneelsewhere.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/dial-m-for-murder-1954/. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces Album Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces Album Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parietal eye

Moved discussion to Article's talk page

File:Lemurs Park.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lemurs Park.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SurreyJohn. 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]

Permission

@SurreyJohn:Firstly, I have to congratulate you for your amazing collection of pictures of exotic wildlife. Secondly, I seek your permission to include some of your pictures in my userpage, where I sport "interesting pictures" under that heading. I specifically want to use the "Verreaux sifaka" leaping gif. Thirdly, I want to ask you; How do you make a custom signature? SammyMajed (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SammyMajed: Thanks for the consideration, but all my photos and media clips, as well as most others, are licensed under Wikipedia creative commons licencing (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0). There is no need to seek my permission, but you do need to abide by Wikipedia's licencing constraints. Just click on any image to see the specific licencing. SurreyJohn (Talk) 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SurreyJohn: Appreciate it. Good day to you, sir. SammyMajed (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:TripAdvisorLogo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TripAdvisorLogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SurreyJohn. 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]

Sources

Hello, can you please add your sources to RealSound (RS)? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of RealSound (RS) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RealSound (RS) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RealSound (RS) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Za wl 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RealSound Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RealSound Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SurreyJohn. 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]

Black Lemur

Hi. I see you've reverted my edits. I agree that the male image that shows the tail is more appropriate than mine, but not the female. The female has just been voted VI and should feature in the article. Please also let me know why you removed the gallery of other images. Having just visted Nosy Komba I am aware that visitors sometimes feed the lemurs. This is not approved and a video showing this inappropriate activity which threatens the species' survival should not be promoted on Wikipedia in my view. I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:59, 29 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]