Hello there, I am happy to help you with a renovation of your Userpage. I have a list of interesting Userpages here, look through the list and decide which one you like. Happy editing. AxG(talk)(guest book)12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your "Please fix my page" request
Try User:SMcCandlish/TempVoxRationalis (and yeah, that was a typo; sorry about that). If you like that, you can just cut the code out of it and replace your user page. The fixes: Merged the right sidebars (put Babel stuff at top, because this is recommended), and introduced some space between your gadgets. The results (for me, anyway) are that the gadgets now no longer overlap each other as they sometimes were before. Hope this is helpful and responsive to what you might have thought the problems with the page were. When you are done with my temp page, please blank it so that I will know I can delete it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love it! Thanks a lot! I saw several userpages that looked really nice, and I started to get unsatisfied with mine, as it was a bit disorganized, but it looks great now! Thanks again, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. JoshuaZ02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I did a little de-stub work one time on a wiki-fix up project a while ago, but I think here I got a little de-stub happy. But anyways, I think it was all the references that threw me. Sorry about that. Also I guess I like the article, as long as it stays neutral and referenced. And I was also thinking that the last thing we want is it sprawling with anecdotes and mentions of specific users per WP:SELF. Danski1404:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, can't say I'm involved with the LRC, thats with the architecture school. I actually don't know much about it, other then it's one of the top research centers in that field. Danski1404:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for AFDing the article. I, QuackGuru, have expanded the article beyond anything you ever thought possible. The AFD is the best thing that ever happened to it. Free advertising! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change links that go to Lycée to go directly to Secondary education in France#Lycée. Maintaining links to the redirect page at 'Lycée' are useful for future expansion; if, at some point, 'Lycée' is made into an article, other articles will already link there. The same applies to all redirects that go to specific sections within articles (as you have refined the Lycée redirect); these are known as 'Redirects with possibilities', and most of them are tagged with the template {{R with possibilities}}. Bastin 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the Lycée page as you have refined it (i.e. making it go directly to that section). In fact, this is a vast improvement on before. However, as you have made that change, there is no need to then edit the individual articles that go to the page 'Lycée', as they already automatically redirect as required. If possible, could you please revert your edits to articles that previously linked to 'Lycée'? Cheers. Bastin 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Great, but please DO continue to edit the redirects themselves to make them more specific. IMO, the general inadequacy of redirects (and their categorisation; see Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages) is one of the major flaws in Wikipedia, and lets down both the browsing non-Wikipedian and the expert editor alike. Bastin 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding controversies
Chappaquiddick
Why on earth would you intentionally remove accepted facts about Ted Kennedy waiting 10 hours to report this accident to the police? This is supposed to be a non-biased encyclopedia. I see that you are a pre-democrat, or whatever. I hope your political leanings haven't gotten in the way of the quest for truth and fairness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.153.237 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fine. Sometimes when we cut and paste(lazily) instead of typing, we make mistakes of repeating lines. So I apologize for that. But, since there was no original explanation for you deleting my post, including the very important 10 hour lapse entry, I could only assume that your profile about being a democrat had to do something with your editing choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.153.237 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi there, I was wondering if you welcome messages were placed by a bot, or if they were manual? Just wonder because you welcomed a user who's first (and only) contributions have all been vandalism! [1] -- Chuq06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You signed up for a coach. I'm available. I do have just a few conditions though, and they are that you...
don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready.
take the advice provided by me and your fellow students to heart (this will be a group effort)
display the template {{VC assignments}} somewhere on one of your user pages where you can access it easily (at or near the top of your talk page is a pretty good place).
If you agree, I'll set up a section for you on the Virtual classroom, and we can get started.
Thanx for the update regarding the prank boxes. It's fine, they weren't really a big deal to me. I just was looking around and saw your monobook. Is it good? The code seems long so I though it would be good, but I can't seem to get it to work? Could you give me advice? You probably know where my monobook is. Thanks in advance.--Randalllin03:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say great job on your contributions. I read your talk page and for your age, Wikipedia needs more people like you. Keep up the good work, man. Signed by Tommy (Talk/Contribs) 11:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a few geek fans of supercentenarians have gotten out of hand, creating articles when there is no information at all about someone (i.e. Walter Richardson. I'm all for telling a story about some 113-year-old, but when the story isn't there (maybe the family wanted privacy?), I don't think we should go out and make an 'everstub' with no chance of growing.→ RYoung {yakłtalk} 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, not really an astro-physicist, but I cleaned up this page when it was newly added. The image that you have uploaded as being public domain because it is from NASA may well not be. It was an Astronomy Picture of the Day- check the NASA tag, they could well be copyrighted. Are you certain that this one wasn't? J Milburn12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see you are right. For instance, this one says "Credit & Copyright: Miloslav Druckmuller (Brno University of Technology)", where as the one we are talking about says "Credit: Tod Strohmayer (GSFC), CXC, NASA - Illustration: Dana Berry (CXC)" and so is not copyrighted. Happy editing! J Milburn20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess it was taken before 1920, she looks younger than 40. If you want to change it to PD-US, I don't have a problem. I have had no luck with images here, at one point editors started to delete every image I loaded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry about that!
Thanks for letting me know...I thought my talk page was like an e-mail box and that messages could be deleted after they've been read. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profroush (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Matters
Thanks for your offer of help and your suggestion. I have reworked the Timeline into a History narative and I agree it works much better. Let me know what you think. PeterIto (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well there's a reason why they're called "crackberries". Besides, when you're typing away furiously on a Blackberry in a dull meeting, people figure you must be sending an important email -- not editing on Wikipedia! JGHowestalk - 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archives
Where did you archive the closed polls to?Equazcion•✗/C •15:51, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, found em. Equazcion•✗/C •15:53, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
(you hit me with an edit conflict) I thought I posted a link on the main page...lemme check...yes, I did. it can be found at Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Archived proposals.Also, I was wondering if the bot discussion should be archived. Of all the parts of the proposal, this seems to have reached a good consensus for inclusion. Would you agree? if so, I know its a relatively new discussion, but if consensus has been reached, we can archive it, and include it.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the bot discussion does show consensus, at two days old it's still a bit young to archive. I would let it go for a couple more days. Equazcion•✗/C •15:58, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Return from wikibreak
Hello again, after taking an extended wikibreak, I have gradually eased back into this, and I feel that currently I am ready to return to my journey for adminship. In other words, I would like to return to the "virtual classroom." Would this be alright with you?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for renaming the category Historical literature. You also placed Category:Historical fiction as a subcategory to it.
Now I'm a bit confused as to what belongs where.
Literature is obviously both fictional and non-fictional. Similarly fiction should include plays, films, etc, which are at the same level as literature.
One solution is to place literature and fiction together in Category:History. Another, slightly anal,is to create a lot of "Historical non-fiction...(book stuf)" categories. Any thoughts? —Leo Laursen ( T | C )10:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understand the purpose of the speedy process. The proposed rename is not uncontroversial because the category itself is not uncontroversial. Otto4711 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the speedy rename has been opposed, the existing discussion should now be moved from speedy to the standard CFD page, rather than a new CFD be opened while leaving the speedy in place. It is not the addition of the "s" that is controversial. It is the category itself, which has serious WP:BLP concerns along with implicating WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found you at WP:Editor_assistance and have hopefully easy issues at Second Vermont Republic. Since editors on both sides seem to have some biases pro and con Vermont secession, need a third party to resolve two issues.
2nd paragraph under "History" Re: Bryan/McLaughrey book: In July when I was a new editor I put in the first sentence. Someone recently said it wasn't relevant cause book not about secession, a point they then put in the article. My question: should we leave that section in now that he's said and I agree it is not directly relevant? I've asked the person a couple times if he wants it deleted but he won't answer.
7th paragraph under "History" on Bryan and Baldwin: Another editor had a fit because I deleted the "Archivist" section as WP:OR (should have gone to talk first but didn't. mea culpa.) After he reverted, in talk I explained the problem a few times, which I'll explain in brief here: Two authors made several assertions in Washington Post article. The Vermont archivist then quoted the same verbatim assertions which he described as coming from "a news release by two Vermont supporters of secession." He does not name them, so they could be anyone. The editor obviously wants this to look like a direct response to the Washington Post article, which it may or may not be. I encouraged him to find another source on this but he was just hostile. A solution might be to have a section on the various pro and cons of Vermont Secession, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate and don't feel like working on it myself.
If you want to respond here, that's great. If you do so on my page, please bring over or copy the original details. Thanks! Carol Moore 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDCtalk
Hi! You responded on my talk the same day. I came up with two new issues on the above, but it looks like you are pretty busy. So unless you feel you really want to deal with this, might just do Request for Comment. Thanks.Carol Moore 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDCtalk
AfD nomination of List of plants poisonous to equines
An editor has nominated List of plants poisonous to equines, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on another project that uses MediaWiki and I'd like to import the Click template into that platform. Do you know how to do that? Thanks. CarverM (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand the coding is considerably more subtle and complex than that, on the other, had you not let me know the bot would have carried on making the same mistake. Many thanks. Fixed. RichFarmbrough, 23:05 2 March2008 (GMT).
<Grin> Then you will be amused to know that I implemented arithmetic in regular expressions under AWB to calculate ISBN checksums - this isn't that complex mind. RichFarmbrough, 01:55 3 March2008 (GMT).
Invite
Hi Vox Rationis!
I noticed you were a member of WikiProject Education, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers!
RC-0722communicator/kills23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vox, looking for help on the article Joseph J. Romm. The subject appears to be questionable as to WP notability standing at all, but the entry is being rabidly guarded by an editor continually loading up the text with minor comments, trivia, and unsourced claims. I've tried a few times to scale the article back a bit and clean up the language, but the editor continually reverts any and all changes. And just today, he's enlisted another editor who (by her talk page at least) is a personal friend of his, and who is now making claims of "bad faith edits" by me.
Thanks for uploading Image:SVR flag.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Best that i could do.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Best that i could do.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
One user in particular, User:Fercho85 reverts my many edits every time, even though they are backed by reliable sources. Our problem, I suspect, is that he doesn't want to acknowledge the Amerindian ancestry of many Argentines and insists that just about the whole population of Argentina is White/European. I agree that Argentina has a large European descended population (Next to Brazil and Mexico) in Latin America (Or all the Americas, for that matter), but there are many studies that show a large population have Amerindian ancestry (About 56% have some Amerindian ancestry).
My sources, in Spanish, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm and http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html state that 56% of Argentines has some Amerindian ancestry and that Argentina is a country of mixed ethnic groups (many even have Afro-Argentine ancestry). This, to me, should be added in all articles having to do with the Argentine descended population... as the European population is always referenced, rather tirelessly and given a larger percentage than should be. Please help me to overcome this POV of sorts.
This may not be your area of interest or expertise, but if you can help I would be very greatful! Thank You in advance. Cali567 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response to my comment in the talk section of article referenced above. I am aware that administrators' contributions are not inherently more valuable than other editors' contributions, however I was attempting to point out that an administrator should have better knowledge of pertinent Wikipedia policy as it pertained to the lead of this specific article. Thanks again for injecting some calm into the discussion. --SimpleParadox23:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help/direction
Your name caught my eye when I was seeking help - and I figure I could use a "Voice Of Reason" right now. First thing is I will admit that I may not have handled the situation as well as I might have and likely should have. I am having difficulty with a critcism I wrote on CSI:Crime Scene Investigation (please let me know if I need to provide you additional information. I admit that I am not 100 percent familiar with every single rule about posting, and can now see that I need to include more references (which I now do have) in order to keep my work from being "messed with" a bit less. The person who edited my work, I felt was very condescending to me, and was a bit too superior in their attitude about the rules. They basically said "if I didn't get to it, someone else would have" and my work's "days were numbered". This is where I lost my temper a bit, and again, did not handle it as well as I should have. Wikipedia's rules at times can be confusing when it comes to "verifiable sources" and if in doubt "forget the rules". Instead of getting direction, I felt slapped about. I also admit that I might well be taking this too seriously - but I will never learn if I don't get it from someone with considerably more experience than either I or this other person has. I am not naming them outright as you can find it easily through my contributions page, and I do not want to be guilty of any further incivility if I did go that far (which I suspect I may have a bit when I lost my temper). I do also feel the other party crossed that line. What I am asking from you (and apologies for the scenic route, I do this when trying to hold my Irish temper) - is direction on whether I should just let it go? I am going to do my best not to cross paths with this person again. But I hope that maybe you or someone will understand that being over zealous about people's styles and the exact letter of the Wikipedia rules might run off some people. Thank you very kindly. I will look for your comment here. Bloo (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know
Hey man, I have been looking for a talk page design, and may 'steal' yours soon. I would usually wait for a reply before doing so, but I fear you may be either taking a very long Wikibreak, or are simply not active on en any more. Anyway, if you want it taken back down from my talk, just drop me a message. — neuro(talk)09:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I can't seem to get it working, the width always skitches. Anyway, if you have any idea how to fix this, please do drop me a line. :) — neuro(talk)09:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your threats, and you weren't attacked, how sad that you resort to that
Please notice there's no "attack" there, you DID threaten them, it is a fact, so stop claiming there was an "attack", that's simply false. I'll never understand why you people think you can make things liek this up and get away with it,if you don't like what I have to say about you acting poorly, don't play silly games like lying about "personal attacks", JUST STOP ACTING POORLY. It's not hard, you could start by not threatening people.97.104.182.198 (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)noiwon'tsignmyname[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Best that i could do.JPG
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Best that i could do.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Orphaned non-free image File:Mainland Coat of Arms.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Mainland Coat of Arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
File source problem with File:Last Titan Rocket-Vanderburg AFB.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Last Titan Rocket-Vanderburg AFB.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Hi i'm the one who gave you the above Barnstar,would you be so kind as to help me with my page? thanks!
Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412T02:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vox Rationis. 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.
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Hello, Vox Rationis. 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, Vox Rationis. 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Mainland Coat of Arms.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Mainland Coat of Arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Image de-orphaned. This seems to be a problem of competing bots. Another user uploaded a non-free image to Commons rather than Wikipedia, then changed the infobox to the new image. A bot deleted the new image, then removed the link rather than restoring the previous image, then with the old image orphaned, this bot attempted to speedy-delete the image. ----Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
editing
it me, person Shuvaprasanna.
There are false representation about me and after correcting with my verified email, the contains are not kept edited.
Could you please allow me to edit or edit yourself with information available on google or other sources.
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 Vox Rationis! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
