User talk:X-mass

Welcome!

Hello, X-mass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Alison ^✍ 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. Welcome to Wikipedia. I know you from LJ :) - Alison ^✍ 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Always start a new section at the bottom of the talk page only. Bill william compton^Talk 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you to both you and Johanneswiberg for correcting me and helping me do it right as you can see I have borrowed the stop icon to remind me in future

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is here to remind ME to do it - not you

Aquatic Ape discussion

I'm sorry, but what are you doing on the "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" page? How is this armchair conjecture in any way suitable for an Encyclopedia? Why would you write "evolutionary science is highly contested", when the Wikipedia page on Evolution so clearly states that it is not, backed up with a ton of sources? If you think something is wrong over there, go there and fix it (with peer-reviewed sources) but don't sneak something in on the AAH page. Whether you believe this yourself or not is another matter, but an encyclopedia can't go against itself, agreed? Johanneswiberg (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your source from "Science and Culture" was a good one but applying that on AAH violates WP:OR. Johanneswiberg (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"i did not sneak into the aquatic ape page, this is not a question about evolution, evolution is widely accepted with science, this is a contest between different schools of thought WITHIN SCIENCE about how an aspect of humane evolution happened. your need to appeal to the higher ground of evolution shows how insecure your arguments are, also the way you ignore and delet fully cited data shows that your prejudiced about how the page is read. I am recognising with the encyclopaedia that these ideas are controversial and that science is not fixed but many parts of it are controversial. Your appeal to peer review is just another example of your lack of argument - which peers? the peers you agree with? the journals you read? i am pointing out that as is recognised by philosphers and historians of science that science is not of one mind, and you would be a better scientist and contributor to wikipedia if you recognised this fact."

- why would you write "evolutionary science is highly contested" if it is widely accepted?

I haven't deleted fully cited data. See version history on the AAH page if you don't believe me.

Science is not of one mind, true. I never said it was. But arguing against scientific consensus is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't about presenting logic or truth, it is about verifiability (WP:V).

Peer review has nothing to do with "my peers" or "journals I read". Science is based on peer review in scientific journals, and repeatability.

Please refrain from personal attacks, it's not nice and it's against the rules. I will attempt to be civil as well.Johanneswiberg (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes your right about evolutionary science - that was bad mistake on my part - I meant to say human development, thought I had corrected it on my read through but clearly had missed it

science is not based on peer review, science within schools of thought are based on peer review, schools of scientific thought are argued about in different journals. Again repeatability is a scientific method the problem that can be useful. Another mechanism is to make predictions and look for evidence, Aquatic Ape has done so and found evidence in other species that shows correlation but as we both know correlation is not proof

and i am sorry for the personal attack. Please understand how i might feel when my writing is constantly deleted without apparent evidence instead of being edited. I have taken aboard the corrections and have made corrections, but rather than correcting what i have done it has simply been erased from existence, which suggests malice as opposed to academic thought.

just for an appeal to higher ground - I did my masters in the history and philosophy of science, medicine and society at birkbeck university of london under the auspices of the welcome foundation. X-mass (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have written "the scientific method is based on full disclosure (commonly done through publication in peer reviewed journals) and repeatability". I refer you to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method" for more info. Proof, on the other hand, is not a scientific term commonly used other than in mathematics. You probably mean evidence. If there isn't evidence for a hypothesis, and if the hypothesis can't be falsified, then it cannot become a theory ("intelligent design" is a good example of this).

I still don't see how your changes on AAH has a place on Wikipedia. The hypothesis is not regarded as a valid scientific theory by a majority of the scientific community. Your introduction reads like a defense of the hypothesis and a challenge to its status, and that kind of material is not suitable. Read the Wikipedia guidelines if you have any doubt. Johanneswiberg (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two other users have agreed with me so far and deleted your contributions. Please post your arguments on the AAH talk page before making additional changes. Johanneswiberg (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

their is good solid evidence, new data has been repeated found, however their evidence however is repeatedly rejected and contested by other schools of thought. that doesn't make the theory a hypothesis is merely is a contest around a theory. The wallace/darwin theory of evolution was based on evidence that was repudiated by other schools of thought at the time, it is only now that it is considered ascendant.

my understanding of wikipedia was that it job was to be encyclopaedic not dogmatic. If its role is only to reflect the current majority view about a particular world at any one time, then the wikipedia of china would be right to remove all references to multi-party democracy as invalid and flawed idea held by a few anti-republican reactionaries. Equally if wikipedia existed in the eighteenth century any mention of science would have been removed as heretical and a challenge to the truth of gods law. Or for that matter if it existed in the 1950's where plate-tectonics would have been considered a minor theory, with little evidence, to challenge the then accepted model of a cooling earth.

The entire article reads like an attack on aquatic ape, so clearly anything that brings it back into a balanced article will read like a defence. My introduction is not a defence, it may look like a defence from your position, I have been strenuous in recognising that this a controversy with more than one view between different schools of scientific thought.

I agree with you that the article isn't ideal, and that parts of it might have an undue focus on criticism. But if you want to change this, start by presenting the "good solid evidence" that you refer to. If it is verifiable, then it should be included. If it has been rejected by the scientific community, then it shouldn't be presented in an encyclopedia.

A controversy in a scientific sense is not the same as differing opinions. Wikipedia shouldn't present the "flat earth theory" next to the "round earth theory" - even if there are genuine proponents of the flat earth theory who claim that they have evidence and that they have been unfairly rejected (I did not bring this up to ridicule AAH, just to show you that differing opinions can exist everywhere, it doesn't mean they are both equal).

All that counts on Wikipedia is verifiability, and for that you need good sources. Once again, check the guidelines. Johanneswiberg (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a better understanding of what Johanneswiberg is saying, I suggest you read wp:5P. It gives a good start on what we do and how we do it. For more detail, wp:Verifiability, wp:Reliable sources and wp:No original research will help solidify your policy grounding. To be sure, many editors seem to take on contentious topics before learning the basics here. That makes for a stressful introduction to wikipedia, but also for faster learning. If you don't actively enjoy making errors and getting troutslapped for them, you may wish to work on less controversial topics for a while. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Bradley Manning, 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. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bradley Manning. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:Bradley Manning. Thank you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Bradley Manning. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Emotional Freedom Techniques, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Human Stain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (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) 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, X-mass. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy.
Message added 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Passive Heating

Hi, can you give us a link for the passive heating page, so we can track down and address your concern?--Graham Proud (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cup (unit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metric (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) 08:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re ldl

There wasn't anything wrong with the edit - the problem is that any time you remove material that has a source, and replace it with material that lacks sourcing - it raises red flags. I'd recommend posting the changes you want to do to the talk page first, then see if anyone raises objections to it. It seems like a reasonable edit, but it needs to be supported by sources - if not in the lede, then later in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tranny (slang), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drag. 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) 09:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Suicide is no higher for LGBT youth than any other group (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cloudz679 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Suicide is no higher for LGBT youth than any other group 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.

C 679 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! X-mass, 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! C 679 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|

Edit War Warning

Please read WP:EW and note that you are currently at 4RR on the Koch BLP, and I urgently suggest you immediately self-revert at this point, else you will most assuredly be locked or banned from editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please -- especially as i am already involved in the longer-standing and parallel discussion of this matter at Talk:Koch_family#Censorship_and_astroturf -- excuse my injecting myself into what may have been the beginning of a dialogue. "4RR" may FAIK have some unfortunately wide usage, but in any case the term should be avoided: WP:3RR is a real and foundational policy, and evoking a misnomer like "4RR" for an act (to wit, violating 3RR), that courts banning from editing about the Koch bros. or Blocking from editing WP at all, is at best foolishness. X-mass is indeed already on thin ice (tho nuances like "assuredly" are actually not worth discussing), and deserves better counsel than inducing fantasies about a "4RR".
BTW, WP:BLP is indeed worthy of mention especially when accompanied by linking, particularly as, IIRC, it has not been invoked in the discussion on the article's talk page.
--Jerzy•t 20:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect refenced BLP - which means nothing to me - however on their page I found WP:BLP which I then read and then Oh **** and **** and AH, I SEEE!! And I haven't done any edits since re anything to do with the Koch's - nor will I. Does that help, explain what has been going on. What we've got here is failure to communicate and that's as much my fault as anyone else X-mass (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, i left this page open in my browser, and almost 2 weeks have passed. Now i have no idea whether my recent attention to the F-to-C article preceded or followed your mention of it: i.e., whether you drew my attention to it & made me think about doing some edits there, or whether you noticed a contrib by me there, & found it also relevant to your circumstance. Reminds me of a little song about two people in a bar showing each other nude photos of their lovers. (Well, lemme be honest rather than gender-blind: the two photo-bugs in the song are both male, and the situation probably can't come anywhere as close to ringing true if they're both female.) The singer says "Ain't life funny", bcz the photos that each one has respectively turn out to feature the other's spouse.
Ain't life funny? And sometimes it's funny to notice whether it really makes a difference which direction the F-to-C is running.
--Jerzy•t 06:45 &06:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CN Lester and gay–straight alliances

Hi,

You recently changed the lede at CN Lester to state that they set up the UK's second gay–straight alliance, not the first. This isn't supported by the cited source (which, being the Independent, should be a pretty reliable source), so I've changed it back.

Nonetheless, if you have a source that contradicts this, let me know and we can see how to integrate it.

Thanks!

—me_and 17:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw you put a comment on the talk page about this. Should have checked that already. I'll respond there. —me_and 09:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thanks I realised that I had misrembered it and your in fact correct - it was GNSA - Gender and Sexuality Alliance NOT gay and straight alliance. So thanks for the correction X-mass (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Head-mounted display, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Head-mounted display shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Aoidh (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page

As I said in my edit summary, see my talk page, where I have responded. There are serious issues with your edit. Saying that the reference resolves is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the source is there, that's not what I'm contesting. Discuss this material before you reinsert it. It will not be in the article until it is properly verified and the issues are resolved. - Aoidh (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Suicide is no higher for LGBT youth than any other group

Hello, X-mass. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Suicide is no higher for LGBT youth than any other group".

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 one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Suicide is no higher for LGBT youth than any other group}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V sign as an insult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Churchill. 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) 09:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V sign

Please see Talk:V sign as an insult -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 25 October 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) 13:09, 23 November 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Canon EOS M page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperloop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Harrison. 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) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, X-mass. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, X-mass. 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, X-mass. 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]

Nomination of BiFest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BiFest 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/BiFest until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]