User talk:Ca2james/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

LB misinterpretation

This is not the first time Lightbreather has tried to have the last word and then quickly archived - a nasty habit. For the record, you were correct in your interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

if there is one place where an editor can be forgiven for having the last word, it ought to be their own talk page, though I do appreciate the courtesy of a ping since you're talking about me... again. A nasty habit. (I can count on one hand the number of times I've had the last word and archived a discussion - again, on my talk page. Some people say "F*** off" and delete. Some people just delete. Some do what I do.) How many pages have you shown up on to comment about me? Would you appreciate it if I did the same to you? Because I could start making that part of my WP routine, as you've apparently done with me. Lightbreather (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, Sitush and Lightbreather, I get that you two don't get along, but your constant sniping at each other is getting tiresome.

Sitush, although I appreciate knowing that Lightbreather has responded to other posts and then archived them right away, it's better if you stop posting about her actions. All it does is stir up trouble and give her ammo against you.

Lightbreather, Sitush did have a point: your response didn't address anything that I said so it did look like you were trying to have the last word and shut down the discussion. But it's your Talk page, as you say, and I didn't care enough about the subject to post again. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL image

With regard to your statement "Showing a private seller's inventory might possibly be suitable but I'm not convinced of that, because again such an image doesn't represent the loophole itself.", GSL is about unlicensed private sales/transfers. Something like this [1] should be acceptable. The point is to improve the article. If some people still find the images not to be NPOV, then we will just have to send them to WP:NPOVN again. Darknipples (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Fine Frenzy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Fine Frenzy. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:AdmiralAlex

Hi, though this is not in exactly the same vein as the longevity-related user pages that were put up for Mfd this appears sufficiently similar to deserve examination. So far I have had no input for any other users so would appreciate your input. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Commentary on ANI Initiated by JYTDog

Hi Ca2james,

I see that you commented on the ANI complaint against me that was filed by JYTDog. Thanks for submitting your opinion. I'd ask that you take the time to look through the actual source material rather than JYTDog's complaint because of cause he will have a biased view and most of his examples were taken out of context. Based on your short commentary, it looked as though you referenced JYTDog's materials but maybe I am mistaken. Here are just a few examples of where I felt his complaint was very off base and I'd appreciate it if you would update your opinion if you even partially agree.

• He referenced edit warring on several occasions but the reality is I have never actually edit warred despite his accusations. A few occasions I have have reverted another editor's change but never have I reverted anything close to more than 3x in 24 hours (as defined by wiki policy). Formerly98 I know has definitely violated this policy and been reprimanded and I think the same is the case for JYTDog but I am not sure on the latter.
• He criticized me because I was subject to a sockpuppet investigation along with around a dozen other editors. This was entirely baseless and was closed without any consequences to myself or others. Although I had nothing to do with it, this would obviously create the impression I am a disruptive editor even if it was entirely untrue.
• Many of his complaints were mistakes I made back in 2011 and 2012 when I was unfamiliar with wikipedia procedures and policies. Unfortunately, I was not assisted by any helpful editors in the early so I had to figure things out by myself over time, but these were mistakes of a frustrated newbie that didn't know up from down.
• There are plenty of other problems with his accusations and he has been the aggressor in many skirmishes with other editors along with Formerly98. I just ask that you look at things holistically and update your impression once you get a chance to do so.

Thanks Doors22 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Doors22, and thanks for your message. I did look at your contributions and the article Talk pages before commenting because I believe in doing my own research. While neither Jytdog nor Formerly 98 have behaved perfectly, IMHO the bulk of the disruptive behaviour came from you. You have my sympathies: dealing with side effects is the worst part of taking medication, and getting unknown side effects recognized is difficult. And I also sympathize with editors who come up against MEDRS as I know it's frustrating to meet those requirements. However, your editing behaviour and personal attacks have gone too far. Editing in another topic area and becoming more experienced on Wikipedia can only benefit both you and the encyclopaedia in the long run. Ca2james (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Let me ask you this question. Two days ago Formerly98 was very aggressive about added the source of a small unrestricted gift from a high-quality meta study which certainly complies MEDRS standards. Literally, the next day he is arguing on Glaxo Smith Kline's article using logic that is completely contrary to he day before. How would you deal with this kind of situation? He writes:

• "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions. Wouldn't that be second guessing the MEDRS compliant sources that took the fact that the trial was GSK funded in forming their conclusions?" -- Diff Source

Let me ask you how it is possible to reach a compromise with an editor that is completely uncompromising. While it may look like a personal attack when I say he is acting deceptively, I don't see how you could interpret his edits any other way. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doors22 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Doors22! Reaching a compromise with another editor starts with communication, the assumption of good faith, and the assumption that a compromise is possible. Trying to interpret the edits myself is the road to conflict; just because I think I know what someone is saying doesn't mean that I'm right so the first step is to clarify what was said. I don't know why Formerly 98 appears to argue the same issue two different ways, so I would have posted something like this: Over at GSK you said to keep the funding mention out of the article and here you're saying to include it. I'm confused; I don't see how these are different situations. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks! If I was dissatisfied with the answer, I would have posted over at WT:MED asking for additional views on the subject.

Under no circumstances is it ok to personally attack that editor or to edit-war because those behaviours are against WP policies - and they indicate an unwillingness to compromise. Ca2james (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP: Edit summaries

Thought I would just drop you a line to note that I have edited the Help:Edit summary essay to indicate comments should be raised on the Editor's Talk page, rather than the Article's Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary is an information page, not a WP:Essay. And I reverted DrChrissy, as seen here. As editors who watch my talk page know, it annoys me when editors bring an article dispute they have regarding me to my talk page instead of to the article talk page. Those matters belong on the article talk pages, so that those watching those talk pages or otherwise visiting them will know about the matters and clearly see that they can weigh in on them. It is also best to document article disputes at the talk pages of the articles so that editors can refer to what matters have been disputed without searching the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have indicated elsewhere, it does not really bother me strongly where I take a dispute, but at the moment, I can be attacked either way if I raise the issue at the article Talk page or the Editor's Talk page. Surely this situation should not exist. It needs clarification.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The text should simply state "talk page," like it currently does. It is the editor's decision to address another editor at the user talk page or at the article talk page. In some cases, I go straight to the editor's talk page, but that is usually if I think or know that the editor is an inexperienced Wikipedian and that I can reach the editor quicker/better that way. Otherwise, WP:Pinging the editor at the article talk page if I think or know that the article is not on the editor's WP:Watchlist suffices. Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tended to do the same as you Flyer22, but when I recently raised the issue of the behaviour of an editor on an article's talk page, I was told in no uncertain terms that such discussion should not be there, but on the "offending" user's talk page. If I remember correctly, I was even threatened with being labelled disruptive if I continued to do this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, article Talk pages are for content discussions whereas discussions regarding editor behaviour go on that editor's Talk page. So, for example, if an editor is at 3RR or is writing uncivil edit summaries or has made an uncivil comment, other editors would bring up those issues on that editor's Talk page and not the article Talk page. Zad68 recently brought up this issue on DrChrissy's Talk page; perhaps he can clarify for you why discussions of editor conduct are properly raised on editor, not article, Talk pages.

That said - DrChrissy, editing long-standing Help pages, policies, guidelines, or even essays can result in your edits being reverted because those pages are the result of long-running consensus. Since your change have been reverted, the appropriate thing to do now is to raise this discussion on that Help Talk page and try to develop consensus for your proposed change. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of editor misconduct. But if an editor is editing inappropriately at an article (for example, making edits that violate WP:Neutral), yes, that should usually be discussed at the article's talk page. And that's usually the case, unless the editor also needs to be warned at his or her talk page. I've been editing Wikipedia for several years, Ca2james. Rest assured that I know what are the best talk page protocols. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And for an example of what I mean, see this recent discussion; that editor misapplying the WP:Neutral policy at that article is absolutely a discussion for that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see. It wasn't clear to me that you were specifically not referring to editor behaviour, which is why it seemed like you were unfamiliar with WP:TPG. I see it may also have been unclear that DrChrissy was specifically talking only about editor behaviour. So now that we're all talking about the same thing - which is where to comment on editor behaviour, not article content - do you see a way that the Help page could be improved to differentiate between the two? Ca2james (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oldest people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oldest people. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tensor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tensor. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RSN

Just a friendly reminder to preview your edits before breaking important noticeboards. :-) Good comments, btw. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, and thank you for fixing those issues DrFleischman. I had previewed but I obviously didn't look closely enough. I'll be more careful in the future. Ca2james (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May

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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 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) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lego Elves

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lego Elves. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hugo Barra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hugo Barra. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paranormal activity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paranormal activity. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DS/alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Atsme^📞📧 16:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

For your explanation, and for being kind. Atsme^📞📧 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Atsme. I do try to be helpful although sometimes it turns out that my actions are not perceived to be as helpful as they were intended to be. I assume you were thanking me for this edit? If so, I find it odd that you'd thank me for that edit and then say, about the same edit, that I "interfer[ed] with [your] one on one TP [discussion] ... on the TP of Doc James" [2]. Ca2james (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roxy Theatre (Edmonton) has been accepted

Roxy Theatre (Edmonton), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Herbert Hope Risley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Herbert Hope Risley. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts of the templates

By reverting the templates, you knowingly publicized RL info about me after I explained the information should have been deleted by OS admins, but the one post apparently slipped through. I have contacted OS and explained what is happening. I advise you to revert your edits. Atsme^📞📧 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have included precisely zero information in that template from outside Wikipedia; all of the information there comes from your own contributions on Wikipedia. Using information you posted in your own contribution history to note that you have a COI is allowed, and that template belongs on that page because you do have a COI due to your position with Earthwave. I hope that when you contacted OS, you said that there was an open COIN discussion related to your disclosures. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Information that was supposed to be deleted. The COI hasn't even been established, and was in fact challenged by an admin. [3] I'll just sit back and wait. Atsme^📞📧 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If the admin you previously contacted in an effort to get DS applied to other editors on Kombucha had actually challenged the COI, he'd have done it at COIN after being pointed there in the discussion you linked to. It's telling that this admin didn't comment on the COIN discussion. Your COI has in fact been confirmed by experiencededitors and is not in dispute.

Even if everything had been redacted, the fact that you have a COI with respect to Earthwave would still be true. It's not like redacting it just makes it go away; it just becomes harder to prove without OUTING the editor. But whether or not a COI can be proven, an editor with a COI still has a COI shouldn't be editing areas that are related to that COI. Having a COI really is no big deal and not worth all of this drama.

It would be a lot easier to collaborate with you if you handled disagreements differently. Right now, when you disagree with someone, you post long walls of text accusing the other editors of ill-will, harassment, hounding, and personal attacks; of making unwarranted/unsubstantiated statements; of being wrong; and denying that they have any point at all. That's not collaboration, it's a battle where you have to be right. It's exhausting and frustrating to deal with this approach - especially, like with this COI, when there's no need for it. I urge you to rethink your approach to conflict and disagreements. Ca2james (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring at Gabor B. Racz

I don't know if you have received the DS notice for Biographies, but you are edit warring and subject to DS if you keep it up. I responded to your screw-ups on the article page. Atsme^📞📧 02:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you are reverting removal of WP:COPYVIO material. If you want it included, reword it. The article isn't going to suffer with it out and keeping it in is wrong. Ca2james (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In the future, before accusing someone of copyvio, please understand what constitutes a copyright violation. I provided helpful links on the article's TP which also includes info about "fair use". You can also use User:CorenSearchBot/manual#Unprocessed_requests but please learn how to read the results before using that tool. Another useful tool is here [4]. All of these things were checked in the original GA review. I agreed with the need for MEDRS sources regarding the medical claims - fixed that issue - but this other drama is unwarranted and is only creating more work for very busy editors. Have you been through a mentoring program, yet? Atsme^📞📧 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not finding results with one bot doesn't mean there wasn't a COPYVIO. It appeara that you do not understand copyright or fair use. In neither case can text be used without attribution, which is what has happened. Here is the relevant text from the policy:

copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

The sources you have added for medical claims do not conform to MEDRS and removing the medcn tags was unwarranted. Ca2james (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They do conform. They conform equally to what you guys used at Kombucha. MEDRS is malleable and primary research is acceptable. Sorry it conforms. Atsme^📞📧 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is not malleable: it says to use the best available sources, and it describes how to find them. Sometimes there's a lot of top-quality sources, and sometimes, as is the case of kombucha, there isn't. What's a best quality study for kombucha will therefore necessarily be poorer than a best quality study for, say, GMO foods, but using those poorer kombucha studies still falls under MEDRS.

Primary research is sometimes acceptable but should be used sparingly, and using review articles is preferred. Review articles are available for the Racz article and those should be used instead, especially for conclusions about efficacy.

In the Racz article, you're using sports and back medicine websites and news articles as references for medical claims. Those are definitely not MEDRS-compliant. Ca2james (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope - [5] They're malleable. Atsme^📞📧 21:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. Saying they're malleable to support poorly-researched areas is different than just saying they're malleable. The former is specific while the latter implies that there's no rhyme or reason to using the guideline. Either way, the guideline is not malleable enough to prefer primary sources or to allow websites and news articles to be used to support medical content, both of which you're doing at Racz. Ca2james (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I got you a better source - a book - and deleted the other one. Ok? You could have done that, too. Why are you being an armchair critic? You could help. Atsme^📞📧 21:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to make edits but you kept reverting me. I was looking for sources but that takes time and I'm not fast at it. I put the tags in so that other editors could look for sources too. Ca2james (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 22:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of Coin

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:03, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich! When I'm back to eating solid food (I'm sick right now), I'll enjoy it. I hope that you're able to get those restrictions lifted because then it will be easier for me and others to support your next RfA. Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Are you open to collaborating with me to improve the following article: Peter_Wilmshurst? Atsme^📞📧 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure! I'm unfamiliar with him so I'll need to do some research, but I'd be happy to work with you to improve the article. Just one thing: if we disagree on something, can we both agree to try to see where the other is coming from and to work to find some way forward? Ca2james (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have been agreeable and was actually looking forward to such a collaboration but your behavior on Kombucha has given me a change of heart. Can't say I didn't try. And please spare me the BS about over and over and over because it works both ways. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if others would simply WP:HEAR. Atsme^📞📧 14:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed the statements you made at Kombucha several times but you continue dismiss my explanations as if I'd said nothing; instead of refuting mine or others' responses, you keep repeating your statrements (which is pretty much the definition of WP:IDHT). I asked above that we agree to try to see each other's viewpoints when we disagree, and since it appears that you're unwilling to do that, I'm not open to working with you on Peter Wilmshurst. Good luck with the article. Ca2james (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Hughes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amy Hughes. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People

I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky8168, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't rescinded the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Ca2james (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Admins agree that you're wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sailor Moon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sailor Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Race and genetics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

More organised discussion needed

James,

I feel that a more organised discussion about the issues surrounding the WOP project and the solutions to them is needed. Currently it's a manic free-for-all which has lead to edit-warring and people being potentially topic banned. I also feel the need to clear up a few misconceptions that other editors have about the goal that I and others have when it comes to editing these articles. I'm not pro-GRG, I'm pro-age validation. There's a difference. I think it's important that a scientific subject is treated with a high level of consideration for factual accuracy. Some of the current proposals - such as to create lists of the oldest people with a mixture of verified and unverified cases - is like mixing information about evolution and creationism.

I understand that your viewpoints are different, so I think the best thing is to try and form compromises which are in-line with Wiki policy. For example, I think List of oldest living people, as it currently is, is fine even if the "pending" and "unverified" cases are mixed because then it's at least clear to the reader that "these cases are considered genuine by a major international body" and "these cases are only claims and have not been verified". I don't think that's much to ask.

I'm also going to propose that we remove some rather unnecessary list articles like List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 and trim down certain other lists to "top 100 oldest" or whatever.

In the meantime, I think everyone should take a brief "cool down period" and resume discussing these issues in a more organised manner.

--Ollie231213 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213, did you really just say that mixing GRG-verified and GRG-unverified cases in a table is the same as mixing creationism and evolution? Seriously? I think you have an inflated view of the GRG and its place in this world. Mixing verified and unverified (which includes what the GRG calls "pending") is totally appropriate because these are lists of the oldest people, and keeping the tables separate makes it difficult for readers to get information out of the tables. If the purpose of these tables was for the GRG to keep track of which entries are verified and which aren't, then it would make sense to keep them separate - but that's not the purpose of these tables.

I'm not seeing a manic free-for-all. However, you're welcome to start new discussions on WT:WOP so that each issue is discussed in the organized manner you desire. I think lists like List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest men, and List of the verified oldest women need to be merged, renamed, or deleted because "verified" is being used in a GRG-specific way (ie as a webhost) and this is not the GRG. Moreover, I suspect that the suite of articles needs to be assessed with a critical eye with a goal towards making them less a reflection of the GRG and its tables and more encyclopaedic.

Finally, pinging Ricky81682 so that he is aware of this discussion. Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ollie231213, did you really just say that mixing GRG-verified and GRG-unverified cases in a table is the same as mixing creationism and evolution?" ---> NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT. I just said "verified and unverified", I made no mention whatsoever of the GRG and in fact made it quite clear as such. The message is not getting through to you: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE GRG. It's about treating information which is proven to be true as if it's the same thing as information which is not, hence the comparison between evolution/creationism. Tell me: should Methuselah and Jeanne Calment be on the same list? Ask Guinness World Records who the oldest person ever was and they will say that the oldest authenticated age reached by anyone was by Jeanne Calment. If I ask you... well I don't know, tell me? "134 year old" Tuti Yusupova? "160 year old" Dhaqabo Ebba? "256 year old" Li Ching-Yuen?

You need to realise that the GRG isn't the only organisation that keeps databases of verified supercentenarians. The International Database on Longevity (IDL) also does this, and Guinness World Records verify the ages of record holders. Read the IDL's statement on why age validation is important. "Because most reports of reputed supercentenarians are erroneous, age validation is essential to compilation of accurate data."

The real question here is: why do you not seem to care about separating fact from fiction on Wikipedia? Ollie231213 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You said Some of the current proposals - such as to create lists of the oldest people with a mixture of verified and unverified cases - is like mixing information about evolution and creationism. This is the first time you've suggested that anyone but GRG can validate ages. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you were referring to GRG-verified and GRG-unverified ages.

This brings up a question: if there are other organizations not associated with the GRG that keep track of supercentenarians, why are their databases not referenced in any of the WP:WOP articles? Why do all WP:WOP articles refer only to GRG verified and pending cases and to the GRG itself? Either those organizations aren't considered reliable (which appears to be what the community thinks of Oldest People in Britain, which is associated with the GRG anyways), or this really is all about the GRG.

Either way - whether this is all about the GRG or it's about age validation - there's no reason not to include both validated and not validated entries in these articles, provided the name of the validating organization is included. Moreover, it looks like consensus in the community will be that it's perfectly ok to use family-written obituaries for birth and death dates provided that it's shown that the birth date is unconfirmed.

I care about providing verifiable, reliably-sourced, neutral information in Wikipedia articles, and I put Wikipedia's policies and guidelines first. I would like to think that you and other members of WP:WOP care about and do the same thing. Ca2james (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• The GRG just so happens to be the organisation which is most widely recognised. But if another similar organisation establishes itself as a reputable competitor then I have absolutely no quibbles whatsoever with using it as a source on Wikipedia.
• "Either way - whether this is all about the GRG or it's about age validation - there's no reason not to include both validated and not validated entries in these articles, provided the name of the validating organization is included." ---> Well that's a start. All I ask is that for every person listed in these articles it is made clear if any reliable source has verified their age.
• Of course I care about verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutrality, that's EXACTLY why I'm having these discussions. I want readers to be able to know if the information they are reading is accurate. And I want to make clear that just because a newspaper or obituary reports someone as being age X, it doesn't necessarily mean that the age claim is genuine, hence why I've brought up the discussion at RSN. But I'm getting an incredibly negative response from Ricky who seems to think I'm being disruptive when I'm actually trying to cause as little disruption as possible by having these discussions WITHOUT EDIT WARRING.
• Also, regarding this issue of neutrality, please read WP:VALID, namely this sentence: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Ollie231213 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So now you're saying that no other group should be included in Wikipedia articles because they're not regarded as highly as the GRG (by ... the GRG?)? Please don't try wikilawyering here. Ca2james (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I DID NOT SAY THAT. All I'm saying is that any source that is used needs to be reliable and reputable, obviously. Now what am I doing that's wikilawyering? Ollie231213 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My summarization was based on your bringing up WP:VALID when the reliability of the GRG and other organizations are under discussion. By saying that the GRG is the only reliable source and pairing that with a statement about excluding minority viewpoints, the message I got was that these minority viewpoints are organizations that are not the GRG. The reason I said that this was wikilawyering is because WP:VALID is about content, not reliable sources, and it looked like you were trying to apply it to reliable sourcing. Ca2james (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity" ---> My point is simply that, if a man claims to be 150 but his claim cannot be proven (and hence is not considered "verified" by any reliable source dealing with age validation) then he should not be included alongside Jeanne Calment whose age has been verified. It needs to be made clear that one is validated, and the other is not. But I fear that some of the proposals being put forward would end up with something like that happening. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie, did the ANI discussion teach you nothing? Waenceslaus's views about what's going on are not remotely close to what objective, neutral outside observers here see and it got him topic-banned because people decided that his involvement was more disruptive than useful to the whole project. We don't need more discussions, we need to move on. We've had numerous discussions about this issue. Ollie's views have been made but consensus does not support them. There are very few people who agree with everything around here so either the WOP members are interested in following the community consensus around here and the project exists as a project should (namely to get the articles in compliance with the Wikipedia practices around here and moving towards GA and FA status and the like) or that project will be disbanded and members topic if not outright banned because nobody else really cares. It's a matter of respect: either you respect everyone's views around here or the rest of the populace here will stop you so they can deal with the vast, vast majority of the work that's being done here. If there's a particular source at a particular article that's questionable, then we can discuss it. Hand-wringing that the world will end because we can't just quote the GRG table and have to actually think and discuss sources here is getting us nowhere.

As for List of oldest living people I removed all the pending and "other" cases in full. So, I'll go the opposite way: namely, see if anything there has a reliable source behind it (I doubt it) and ask for those to be included. For that, the fact that the GRG hasn't likely verified them is something to consider but it's not the be-all-end-all of discussing the sources. Every other article gets edited, protected, fought over and we do the same argument again and again. At each step, the most disruptive editors will either move on or find themselves blocked while the people will to talk and work things out will get work done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The ANI discussion was NOT about me. I am not Waenceslaus, and his views and actions are not the same as mine. I'm quite fed up of you accusing me of being disruptive when 1. I'm not edit warring, only trying to discuss issues on talk pages before making significant changes 2. I'm clearly just trying to make sure that information in Wikipedia articles is as accurate as possible. Opposing changes doesn't make me disruptive, and making the changes doesn't make your actions CONSTRUCTIVE. Now please tell me on which issues there is consensus. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Being disruptive isn't necessarily just about edit-warring. Posting long comments repeating the same thing without a clear attempt to work towards consensus can also be considered disruptive even when done civilly. You're posting a lot but saying the same thing: the GRG is super-awesome, important, and all science-y, and it's reliable, and there's nothing wrong with the WOP articles the way they are, so please just leave WOP alone and don't change anything. And you're saying that multiple times in multiple places... and when you personally aren't saying it, other members of WOP have been saying it for a decade. Dealing with this gets tiresome, especially since it's not clear that anyone from WP:WOP actually understands - or wants to understand - how Wikipedia works or why the way the WP:WOP members want to do things doesn't conform to policies and guidelines.

What you and the rest of WP:WOP are not seeing is that many of the articles associated with that project are just displays of GRG data without sufficient references, as if this were the GRG, and that the use of colour in many articles is against MOS:COLOUR; in other words, the awesomeness of the GRG isn't particularly relevant on Wikipedia and there is a lot wrong with the articles. Ca2james (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Maybe I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if you actually stop misrepresenting my views. I AM NOT saying "the GRG is super-awesome", I'm saying that age verification is important. I AM NOT saying there is nothing wrong with these articles as they are - I made clear in my first post that I think some articles could be proposed for deletion and others changed. Ollie231213 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit that my comment included posts not just from this discussion on this page but also the discussions on RSN. I also admit that when I characterized your statements about the reliability of the GRG as "the GRG is super-awesome," I was too flippant. I apologize for being flippant and unclear. I appreciate that you do recognize that the articles are problematic. Ca2james (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you saying so. I think we now need to turn the attention away from the GRG and realise that it's not being used as a WP:WEBHOST (see the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the verified oldest people) and instead focus on age verification. It should be pointed out that many of the excessive list articles like List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries were created by amateur "fans" and not by the GRG. Does the GRG really care about who the 29th oldest person from Denmark/Finland/Iceland/Norway/Sweden is? Not really, the primary use for their databases are for studying mortality rates, observing changes in supercentenarian populations over time, etc... in other words, things of scientific interest, rather than trivia. I'm not bothered if these kind of articles are deleted, as I think they're better being hosted at Wikia since they're of greater interest to "fans" rather than the general public. Ollie231213 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you and I are mostly on the same page. I think the MOS-based solution offered at RSN for family- and self-written obituaries for birth dates - either use "circa" or note that the date is unconfirmed/unattested - is a good one. I have a slight preference for a note that the date is unconfirmed/unattested over using circa because to me, circa implies that the date is unknown or a best guess but in this case a date has been provided. I don't know if using the word "unconfirmed" or "unattested" is required after the birth date or if a footnote would suffice; I like a footnote to reduce clutter, especially since there will be many of these notes.

I also like my solution of making a GRG note to indicate which entries have been verified by the GRG. A similar note could be used for GWR (Guiness World Records) and for any other organization that verifies the dates. Then it's clear who is doing the verifying.

I misjudged the AfD, that's for sure. Still, I think that perhaps the title could be changed, and I don't see the utility of having both an overall list AND male and female lists. I also think that there are articles that are just used to display GRG data and/or presenting the same or similar data in different ways. However, there are so many articles associated with this project - and they all need some degree of work - that I can't keep it all in my head and I have a hard time seeing the overall picture (I'm the kind of person that likes to have a "big picture" view). I think there will be some articles that can be merged or deleted but approaching all this work piecemeal is hard for me. I'm starting a table in my userspace (I haven't saved it yet) that looks at the articles associate with WOP and summarizes their intent as well as their problems. I'm hoping that this will make it easier for me to see what's going on with these articles. Ca2james (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Prior to recent changes to List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 as per the RSN discussion about Table EE, there was a column which listed if a case was "verified" or "pending". I think a similar thing could be incorporated but with "verified" and "unverified" instead, and a reference to the verifying body could be put with those that are verified. So for example, it could look like this:

Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age	Place of death	Verified?
Gertrude Weaver	F	4 July 1898	6 April 2015	116 years, 276 days	United States	Verified
Anna De Guchtenaere	F	10 April 1904	6 April 2015	110 years, 361 days	Belgium	Unverified
Orma Slack	F	19 February 1903	13 April 2015	112 years, 53 days	Canada	Verified

That way, we have both a reference to the news article or obituary that has reported the death, and the verifying body if appropriate. Thoughts? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, and let me remind you again - before you say that "verified" is a GRG designation - that the validation of exceptional longevity is a scientific concept accepted for 140+ years, with William Thoms establishing the basic premise of the need for age verification in the 1870s. Ollie231213 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposed table structure

discussion moved to WT:WOP#Proposed_table_structure Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you participated in the prior discussions regarding the table structures, I decided to start an RFC here. I think the discussion moved away from the table to the note option but I just want it fleshed out with more than the same people. The attempt at a neutral explanation is probably more mangled than is possible to understand. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Longevity

Please comment on Talk:Jones & Jury (TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jones & Jury (TV series). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

we'll win

your edits are vandalism and must stop soon. You may block us and add sanctions,but we won't let you destroy entire articles! It's digusting,and you are warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.242.198 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ali Khamenei

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ali Khamenei. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --106.171.48.61 (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phineas Gage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phineas Gage. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Don't You (Forget About Me)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Don't You (Forget About Me). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heroes: Original Soundtrack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heroes: Original Soundtrack. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agnes de Mille

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agnes de Mille. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger of List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 into Longevity myths

Could you please revisit your merger of List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 into Longevity myths? The merged version of the article includes Chesten Marchant, whom I added personally, her being additionally notable for reportedly being the last monolingual speaker of Cornish (a much more plausible claim, in any case), but in the result of your merger, she is nowhere to be found. Therefore I suspect an oversight – and where there's one, there could easily be more. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marco Rubio

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marco Rubio. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fiona Graham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fiona Graham. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marlon Brando

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marlon Brando. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schulze method

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schulze method. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Psychology sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Psychology sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Area of a disk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Area of a disk. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Matrix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Matrix. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doctor Who (series 9). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rothschild family

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rothschild family. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Rude

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rick Rude. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serial killer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serial killer. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:German Waldheim Cemetery

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:German Waldheim Cemetery. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And a different topic

You had asked about the "Earwig" tool for checking copyvio stuff. Here is the link. Note that once you get the result, you can click on each link provided and get the actual examples. The main weakness is that older articles have a lot of mirrors and so they get flagged, and also articles with a lot of direct quotations, even if properly attributed and formatted, will also be flagged. Still, it's faster than dup detector and does a full web search all at once. Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC): https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/

Please comment on Talk:Borel regular measure

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borel regular measure. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP/N Notice

There is a discussion involving you at WP:BLPN. A more precise link for your convenience is here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)