Hello, Ludde23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Bachrach4414:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to take action about a serious problem (see Revision history of 191).
This person (80.42.224.130) is violating the rules of Wikipedia. Action is needed!!
I'm sorry, but I don't really see what I could do (besides giving the person a reprimand). Secondly, it's some rather mild vandalism, easily reverted and nothing to get excited about. /Ludde23TalkContrib05:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see the big problem (that it wasn't just 191, but a whole bunch of articles this person has vandalated). Still, there's not much I can do, since I'm just an ordinary user and not an administrator. Secondly, the user in question seems to already have been blocked for a month. /Ludde23TalkContrib05:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i fought that you are also a administrator. Indeed it is mild vandalism but the person in question was violating the rules and it is also not nice to read on every yearpage that a person is died of cancer or a hartattack. Thanks, Peters01 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pimp my Userpage
Hi Ludde23, can you please help me to pimp my Userpage?
I like also your editorstars, because i have almost a 1,000 edits on Wikipedia.
I mean if you can help me to restore my userpage, the orginal version is to simple and when i look at your page it is perfect. I like also the editorstar, how can i get this item on my page? Peters01 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you can do it yourself. Simply click "edit" when you're on my page, copy what's there and paste it into your own page. Then make the appropriate changes, such as you not being from Sweden but from the Netherlands etc. As for the editor star, simply follow the links next to it, and you'll find further instructions there. /Ludde23TalkContrib08:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errors
A brief question about the section in List of Prime Ministers of Sweden.
I believe deputy head of government Lars Engqvist was acting Prime Minister between the period 3rd June - 1st October 2004. Göran Persson was out of office and according to the rules; if for any reason, the current Prime Minister cannot perform his/her duties, the vice Prime Minister will taker over. During that time, Mr Persson had a hip surgery followed by rehabilitation. Isn't that the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerikabrevet (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you undid my edit on 74 BC. Please see my response on Talk:74 BC. Note that the Roman calender started in march and did not comply to modern calenders. Therefor your argument is void. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Congrats on your patience with going about year after year and standardizing the relevant pages, but you have got a few things wrong: first, the Byzantine regnal dating you favour is way too euro-centric, excluding the rest of the world. Even in Europe, the system was far from universally used, and even in the Byzantine Empire, dating by indiction was the usual shorthand. Furthermore, consular dating had in effect been abolished, only very few writers using it after 541, and almost no one in real life. Same goes for the AUC format. IMO it is best to leave the lede with the Common Era year alone, since that is the de facto universal system. Otherwise we would have to add every single other system, and that is precisely what the "YYY in other calendars" navbox is for. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 13:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. However, thought I'd add this to the eighth century too, since the AD system became predominant at the beginning of the ninth century. Since I don't have anything better, for the time being, I thought I'd use it for just one more century, in order to at least have something to put in the lead section. When I find a better phrasing, I'm very willing to change it. /Ludde23TalkContrib14:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive it was 1422 when Western Europe was using vulgar dates almost universally. Even then regnal years are used into the twentieth century for some purposes. RichFarmbrough, 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
About "Noincludes" – I know it doesn't help. I've begun adding them as a preparation/help for the eventuality of future transclusions. It does not affect nor hurt the layout of the page.
About "Events => Events of XXXX" – This is the case from the year 1301 and onward. I just wanted to make it the same all over.
About "Spaces in headers" – What do you mean by "somewhat problematic". To me there's no problem to add them as I go along.
ABout "Unreferenced" – I've made a reply on the talk page of the Unreferenced template.
About "Categories" – As there are more than 2,500 year articles it seems strange that this category should be included on only one of them.
What future transclusions? Generally articles should not be transcluded.
Probably better to remove them all over.
People have different opinions about spaces in headers. Therefore it is deemed unwise to add or remove them unless you are changing a header. (I.E. you will get shouted at for doing it.)
Alright, better with only "Events" instead of "Events of XXXX". Got it.
So far, you're the only one who has "shouted" at me for adding them. In my opinion, there's an advantage with spaces, being that if you're stepping through the words of a header (in edit mode) with Ctrl + left (or right) arrow, you don't end up to the right of the rightmost equals sign (or to the left of the leftmost equals sign), but instead just to the right or left of the words. Secondly, whether there are spaces or not in headers varies greatly in the year articles – I'm simply making it consistent.
The year categories (e.g. "Category:74 BC") are included in the "Category:Years" but no year articles themselves are. To include the years themselves would create a double categorization. Anyway, if the year articles should be included in the "Category:Years" (which I think they shouldn't), please put all year articles in it, not just one random article out of nearly 2,600.
violates WP:DASH and probably should not have been changed at all; it lies in a conflict between Wikipedia style guidelines, so should not be changed without WP:YEARS buy-in.
And I'm not sure the monthly calendars should have been removed.
About spaced dashes: They're not spaced in any other year articles, so I just thought I'd make it consistent with all others. If it's wrong, I'll start fixing this once I start going through the year articles again (starting at 499 BC I've now gone through them all up to 2010).
About changing [[July 9|9]] to [[July 9]]: It's strange that there is a rule like this, since there are also comments that urge every contributor to link all dates, even if repeated, for date preferences. Of course, that pattern works well if your date preferences is Month Day – then it would indeed read "July 7 – 9". But what if your date preferences are the other way around (Day Month). Then, that would read "7 July – 9", which doesn't make much sense. Anybody with that date preference would probably prefer it if it said "7 – 9 July", so this should work as a compromise. However, if this is really a big issue, I will go over it at the same time that I go through the year articles looking for other such errors (of mine).
About the monthly calendars: This has been discussed elsewhere (I don't remember exactly where right now – probably on the talk page for {{Month3}} or so) and it seems they are problematic, since they create a huge number of extra wiki links. In my opinion, it's better to see the common year starting on Monday (or whatever year type it was) at the top instead.
OK, I forgot the discussion on the monthly calendars. I think you're right.
WP:DASH seems to still specify that en dashes are not spaced unless the one of the items connected by the en-dash has punctuation or spacing.
As for the [[July 9|9]], that should have been discussed on WT:YEARS before implementation, even if it is a general Wikipedia guideline, as WP:LINKING has specific exceptions for links to dates in timeline articles. It may be a good idea, but the project should have at least been notified of the style change, and a short wait for the lack of opposition. — Arthur Rubin(talk)18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, since I don't have a bot and don't know how they work. However, it's an easy task for me to fix this. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it today, but I will go through them tomorrow, if nobody else has by then. /Ludde23TalkContrib07:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But otherwise: Yes, I'm underway to go through them all and so far I've done 200 articles. Like I said, I don't have the time today, but will continue tomorrow. Please bear with me. /Ludde23TalkContrib07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're right! Wonderful, but I didn't know it had been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. It's great that the bunching templates are no longer necessary. Please forgive my earlier remark on your talk page then. /Ludde23TalkContrib07:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm unclear why you removed the {unsourced} tag on 1396. You say "people don't want it on year articles". You mean the tags or the sources? 2009 has 94 references. Is there a policy somewhere I'm missing? Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the tags. Once upon a time I added such tags to all year articles from 499 BC up to AD 1700, with the intention of going all the way up to 2059. However, by then, I got a few complaints about them and have been told to remove them altogether, which is what I'm doing right now. People claim that year articles should be internally referenced, for instance. I don't agree, but I am now removing the tags. Of course, anyone is free to add sources to the year articles, but the tags aren't really necessary, since, hopefully, other articles on the subjects are referenced. /Ludde23TalkContrib21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be fair to speak to you before starting an informal discussion at Requests for Comment. I noticed that you created a new disambiguation-line template called Year dab and have included it in a number of articles. It appears that- as well as the general "other uses" link- this template adds specific links to articles on (possibly all of)
Area codes
Boeing aircraft, and
London bus routes
of the same number if they exist.
I have to admit that I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. Disambiguation lines should be short and inobtrusive- in the case of titles that could have a large number of alternate uses (such as 135), a single link to a disambiguation page is far preferable than having a long and unwieldy dab line with numerous links.
While the template currently only has 3 such special cases, there is no clear reason why other uses shouldn't be handled if those ones were. But if this were to be taken to its logical conclusion, the generated dab lines would potentially be *very* long and unwiedly.
OTOH, if we said that "you can't do that for reasons of length", it would be asked (quite rightly) why the current 3 cases should be included when others weren't. After all, I first noticed the template because I wondered why the London 135 bus service had its own link when it was already on the dab page and none of the other articles got such special handling.
I'd be interested to hear your point of view on this. Thanks,
Thanks for your interest. First of all: I created this Year dab template, because before, the dabbing at the top of year pages were, imho, a mess. There was the about template, the otheruses-number template and so on. I've made this one to make it more consistent. Secondly, I'm sure you agree that XXX (number) and XXX (disambiguation) should be there, I don't think there's any controversy in that. When it comes to others, I did, originally, include only the area codes and Boeing models, because, as I went through the year articles quite a few times, I noticed that those were very often included as dabs, espeically the area codes. Now, the London bus routes, I only found one dab link on a year article (I don't remember which one, at the moment), but when I had a look at the category listing those, I noticed that there are quite a few and I thought that sooner or later, somebody is going to add those manually to the year articles. So, I just thought I'd simplify things by adding them to the template instead.
However, I completely agree with you, that dabs at the top of articles should not be too crowded. Perhaps the London bus routes were a bit too much to add. In fact, thinking about it now, I think they could be removed. Yes, I believe you're right there. So what is your opinion about the Boeing models and area codes? Personally, I don't find it necessary to include them, but I fear that people will start adding them manually, if they are removed. /Ludde23TalkContrib20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I definitely *don't* think that Boeing models or area codes should be included. Nor should anything else unless there's a very strong argument for a particular case- the link to the number or dab page is enough.
(1) If "someone may include it anyway" for Boeing or area codes, the same could be said of lots of other subject types. Which leads back to unwieldy subject lines.
(2) Handling such cases in the template may apparently make things cleaner and more maintainable for editors... but this obscures the fact that it still does *not* make it any better for the end-user (i.e. those reading the article). They still get an intrusive, unwieldy dab line full of stuff that would be better on a separate dab page.
(3) And even *if* some people might try to include them anyway, that doesn't justify doing it ourselves, even if it makes maintenance easier (see (2)). The aim is to make the most readable, useful and navigable encyclopedia for the reader. I believe that longwinded dabs with numerous links are better replaced with a separate dab page (and simple link). That appears to be the general way of doing things on WP anyway.
If people add (e.g.) disambiguation links for their own pet subject that would be better placed on the dab page, we can revert it. They can argue why theirs is a special case that warrants a specific link (when all the other subjects go on the dab page) if they want.
BTW, is there usually a separate XXX (number) and XXX (disambiguation) anyway? There only appears to be XXX (number) in all the cases I checked, that serving as a de facto dab page anyway. In which case, there's no need to include the (disambiguation) variant.
Well, then we can safely remove the area code, Boieng model and London bus route dab links. The reason I included them in the first place was that they were already included as dab links on *many* year articles. When it comes to XXX (disambiguation) I've found quite a few and anyway, you wouldn't think it wrong to dab to a dab page, would you? Generally, the XXX (disambiguation) page should be the one to dab to, however, the number, especially the lower ones, stand out as there are many people actually looking for the number, when they go to the year article, due to Wikipedia's system of reserving articles with only digits for the year. Thus, I think at least those to should be included. Secondly, the links only appear if the dab article in question exists. So, it's not very obtrusive in my eyes. /Ludde23TalkContrib07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First bit sounds okay to me. Can't comment on the second bit as I'm not experienced enough to know whether "overloading" (number) pages into de facto dabs is standard or not- Given that this template is going to be appearing on lots of articles, I'd still be tempted to recommend RFCing it for feedback, but I'll leave that for you to decide. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent change to this template has created a lovely mess on 1550s and probably other places. While you are about it could you also eliminate the DEFAULTSORT conflict that is generated on several of the new year and decade lists? Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I usually catch the errors as I go along, but apparently I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. My recent fix should take care of any conflicts. /Ludde23TalkContrib17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you introduced "February 2011", in {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2011}}, which was not there before? -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the use of the Use mdy dates should be dated with the month it was first added. I added it myself on February 25 (as seen here), but then, it was removed again, due to several instances of vandalism on the article. I simply restored it. /Ludde23TalkContrib00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Julkalendern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Dickson (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.
Hi. Do you have a citation for this addition? I tried searching for references to "Year of the Consulship of Barbatus and Priscus" but couldn't find anything but copies of the Wikipedia article. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological reorg of 1250s, 1260s, and 1270s articles
Hi Ludde23, I only just noticed that you reorganized a lot of the decade articles last year (the 1250s, 1260s, and 1270s articles). It seems to me that it was far preferable to have these articles organized as they were before, broken out by topic area rather than strictly chronological (e.g. 1250s, 1260s and 1270s). That aligns them much more with their contemporary counterparts (e.g. 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s). I would like to revert these articles (and possibly others) to their previous state, but if you'd prefer to have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years first, I'm happy to do that. -- RobLa (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reorganized them was that I did so with all decade articles up till the end of the 17th or 18th century (don't remember which). I did this to keep them the same, since most of the decade articles were worse before. However, if you think they were better before, feel free to change them back. In a utopian future, hopefully every decade article will be a real article on its own (not relying on inclusion from the year articles) and if you think that reverting those particular decades would make them better, please do so. On the other hand, I don't see what harm my reorganization did, since I didn't remove any of the old information. /Ludde23TalkContrib16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I see that a lot of the articles did improve with your work; just not the examples that I provided. It looks like what you did is actually a vast improvement (e.g. on the 1290s article), and what you did was a less labor intensive but more sweeping version of what I've been doing with 1800s, 1810s, and 1820s. The process I've been following is a) incorporate year-based information, b) sort by topic area, c) convert to prose and flesh out with topical information. Organizing these in a strictly chronological fashion makes the conversion to prose more difficult, since many significant events of the decade span multiple years. -- RobLa (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Also, I just took a closer look at the wikitext, and only just realized that you were only using template-fu rather than doing something more comprehensive. I'm a little slow but eventually I catch on. :-) For the articles that were previously stubs, it probably makes sense to leave them as is, perhaps with a template inviting people to convert them. For the articles that had a pretty good start, it's probably best to revert back to their previous version. I'll edit accordingly. -- RobLa (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
If red links actually need fixing, you'll have to find another way. See WP:ERA. I've reverted you as red links aren't a reason to make an era change. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow and see if there are any real problems with links. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Musing about the list of state leaders in X year articles
Hi Ludde, I noticed your recent creations of List of state leaders in X year articles. I noticed before you were doing it with the granularity of a decade. Going back as far as you have, to the present day is quite a few articles for you to create, let alone for everyone else to maintain. But now you've switched the granularity to yearly. That leaves over 2,300 or so additional articles to create of that nature if you want to make the full set.
I would think decade-specific granularity might be better and could be more easily maintained and complete; I'm curious your thoughts on the topic. Shadowjams (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think of it like this: When it comes to pure year articles, they are decade specific up to 500 BC, but broken down into individual years from 499 BC, so I'm just following the same pattern here. Secondly, from 110 BC to the present, the lists of state leaders have alreade been created (see Lists of state leaders by year), so I've only got a little more than 300 articles left to create, and then go on to update the rest. To me, it's no problem to do this and I'm happy to keep going. So, as there already exist over 2,100 such articles, I don't really see any problem. /Ludde23TalkContrib20:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes a lot more sense. I tend to be skeptical of articles of that variety (small sequential form articles)... however filling in that gap makes total sense to me. I assume there's a template that has these listed too. Good luck! Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having replied. I'm getting there in time. You may have noticed that I'm now adding those chinese rulers to the lists and I've now reached the 540s BC. It'll take a few days, until I come to 411 BC, but I'm getting there, if you'll just give it some time. /Ludde23TalkContrib07:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted, only thouse countries where the rulers and their reigning years are known are listed. If you could provide me with a list of the missing countries and lists of their rulers (with years) here on Wikipedia, I would be happy to add them. /Ludde23TalkContrib16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention my sources when i created the article. I don't know why. I did use them in another article i edited a couple of years ago, List of state leaders in 1339. The sources are the same. Alas there is a paper bookwork from the 80s, so there is no internet link. Somehow the best knowledge is still on paper, though it isn't all accurate. Geez, has it been 6 years ago i created the article we are now discussing! Well, the state leaders often lack an article, but all the states do exist according to Wikipedia.Daanschr (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then let me clarify my standpoint. When I created the list of Chinese vassal states on the 411 BC article (and indeed on all the list of state leader articles from the 1050s onwards) I looked through the {{Zhou Dynasty topics}} template and all the states listed there. On the state leader articles, I have listed those states, where the state articles have lists of rulers and their years. On the List of state leaders in 560s BC I've even included the state of Lai, since that article lists one ruler who died in 567 BC. Apart from that, I have chosen not to include other states, since I don't know their rulers' names or years. I figure you would either have to have a list somewhere on Wikipedia or some sort of reference/source to provide. Since I have neither for the other states, I have not included them. You wouldn't expect me to make names and years up, would you? I don't have access to any detailed book about them and to look for lists elsewhere on the Internet is just too cumbersome for the moment. Anyway, too "your" particular article (List of state leaders in 411 BC), I've added all the states that were there before, except Yan, since its article doesn't list its rulers. However, if you know where there are lists of rulers of other states, either on the Internet or if you have a book from which you can provide a reference, please feel free to add them, the more the better. It would then be great if you could do it on more lists than just the 411 BC one, to make the lists as complete as possible. I started on the 1050s BC, since that was the oldest list of rulers I could find (on the article for Cao). /Ludde23TalkContrib07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a source of an academic standard. But, i didn't use legitimate sources. When it comes to the verification of facts, none of the articles discussed can be maintained. I don't desire to make a lot of edits. The 411 BC article has been created 6 years ago, when i was very active on Wikipedia. Now i only once in a while check some edits made on articles i created and that is it. I don't desire to make a lot of edits momentarily. I just like to keep legitimate data in the article i created. I don't see why you are so intend on dismissing information from the article that is implemented from a legitimate source, though not mentioned in the article. Many of the state leaders you did keep in the article also came from that source, and the only reason you dismiss the source is because the extra information on state leaders weren't mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. Here are the sources i used for the article:
Peter Truhart, Regents of nations : systematic chronology of states and their political representatives in past and present : a biographical reference book = Regenten der Nationen : systematische Chronologie der Staaten und ihrer politischen Repräsentanten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : ein biographisches Nachschlagewerk, part I (Munich 1984)
Peter Truhart, Regents of nations : systematic chronology of states and their political representatives in past and present : a biographical reference book = Regenten der Nationen : systematische Chronologie der Staaten und ihrer politischen Repräsentanten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : ein biographisches Nachschlagewerk, part II (Munich 1985)
Peter Truhart, Regents of nations : systematic chronology of states and their political representatives in past and present : a biographical reference book = Regenten der Nationen : systematische Chronologie der Staaten und ihrer politischen Repräsentanten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : ein biographisches Nachschlagewerk, part III (Munich 1986-1988)Daanschr (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well, but how am I to know which names and years there are, when I don't have any books about it, or lists on Wikipedia? You may be interested to know, that I have found a site with lists, which I'm now starting to use. So far, I've reached the 700s BC with these as sources – so I'll be getting to 411 BC in time. When I do, it will contain every state that you listed plus a few more and you cannnot expect me to add anything more than that, since I have no knowledge of what other states, rulers or years there were at this time. /Ludde23TalkContrib14:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ludde23, I undid your move of Yan, Marquis of Tian to Marquis Yan of Tian. Please note that ancient Chinese rulers had two names, one used when alive, and another given after death. The custom is to always use the posthumous name when available, in the form of Marquis (or Duke or King) X of State. But when a ruler does not have a posthumous name, his personal name is used and placed before his title, such as Yan, Marquis of Tian. So please do not move it to Marquis Yan of Tian, it's not correct. -Zanhe (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I noticed some of the work you were doing on the lists of state leaders a while back. You may want to take a look at the merging a few editors are doing at the moment. For instance, List of state leaders in the 1st century BC.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of world map changes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varanger. 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.
Hello, Ludde23. 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.
Hello, Ludde23. 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.
Hello, Ludde23. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited September 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 70. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 185.177.167.66. The IP address is my work computer, but I'm editing Wikipedia as a private person. Ludde23TalkContrib12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Wikipedia doesn't know if you are at work or home. Many workplaces use webhosts/VPNs as a security measure. That said, I will give you a short term exemption so you can resume editing. If you need something longer term, please request an exemption per the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
