Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Since you commented in the last nomination, I'm letting you know that it has been renominated, and your feedback would again be appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey... thanks for reverting my edit of George Washington University. I didn't see the logo, that obviously says The in it, and had thought someone had put it there because it sounded better. Again, thanks for catching my mistake. I should really look next time I do something like that! CorkythehornetfanTalk 21:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Golbez, I put all your maps together into this .gif, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Development_of_the_United_States,_1789_to_1959.gif) but now I find that it won't work on Wikipedia pages for some reason. Do you know why this is, or how to fix it? Cheers, Wikidea 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kannapolis, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Morton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You were involved at Regions of Kazakhstan. Maybe you can have a look at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine#Requested move, I think both cases are very similar. Derianus (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if you were the creator of several images that were modified as part of an animated gif image of the historical U.S. expansion series: [File:US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif] In that set I noticed a problem with Missouri's boundaries from 1837 until 1861. In 1836 the Platte Purchase annexed the land in the northwestern corner up to the Missouri River. This should be added to the maps. The 1861 map reflects this, but unfortunately identifies Kansas as a territory even though it gained statehood in January of 1861. Kenmayer was the creator of the animated gif, but it isn't clear to me if he is still editing since requests have been made by others without response. I'm wondering if there is any way to get this animated gif updated? Red Harvest (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Your use of BLOCK CAPITALS at Talk: United States is not helpful and is generally considered SHOUTING. Just because an editor has a very non-consensus position does not mean that he should be shouted down as a troll, even if his arguments are ignored. Your shouting is as disruptive as the original questionable post. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Golbez, I am interested in a higher res version of one of your maps. I am doing a small book for family members of some family civil war letters and your map of the US/seceding states in 1862 would be a great addition. Blurb bookwright tells me I need a higher res image (300 dpi) which I think means 2400 x 3000 since my book is 8x10. (I am an amateur, so help me out if I have the resolution thing all wrong.) Can you help me? lamqua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamqua (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I am such a neophyte, I am not sure if this is the way to respond to your response to my inquiry about a higher res of a map. This is the map I am interested in: File:United States 1861-08-1862.png
lamqua Lamqua (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Golbez. Several years ago, you fully protected the redirect Genarlow Wilson. I'm requesting that you unprotect it, reduce it to semi-protection, or else fix it so that it redirects directly to Wilson v. State rather than being a double redirect. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've accepted to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jingle truck, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like your input on an edit that is currently being discussed. Specifically, the Proposed formatting change for the article List of Presidents of the United States. Since you have participated in numerous proposals for featured lists of Governors of the United States, I thought you could share insights and information that may be pertinent to this discussion. The edit that is being discussed is this. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
.
Golbez,
As a native Floridian of many generations, I would argue that Florida was designated a territory to be developed - as is supported by the governor's title. Others may refer to it as a "colony" in the context of American colonies, but that is the wrong context. All Spanish documents refer to Florida as a territory then a province(s). It had a capital, St. Augustine, with a coat of arms (a city) and self government through a governor (autonomy in the Constitution of 1812). All of this is furthered in writing in Florida's own constitution of 1838 and in the Ordinance of Secession of 1861s. This ordinance itself was distinct from other Southern states in reference to sovereignty and nationality (side note for who mistakingly place this in the context of Southern nationalism). Florida's government did not start in its modern incarnation, 1845 or 1868 for example. Tallahassee is the capital as a result of a merger between the governments of our provinces in St. Augustine and Pensacola. Lastly, the addition of this content doesn't take anything away from the current page. It just reaffirms the history of the position (how it all started) and who is widely considered to be the first governor.
Thanks for the offer to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.164.46 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you very much for all your tireless contributions to making the territorial evolution of the U.S. a great article. I have more information that I have compiled from sources, including a list of the 247 bancos that were transferred under the 1905 treaty; some of them even have geographic coordinates based on whatever datum they used in 1910. You are right about the lack of commission minutes from the 1910-12 period. (When I first started researching this, almost all of the minutes from the 1920s were not linked on the IBWC website. Shortly after I emailed to point that out, they added those links.) For those 31 bancos in 1910-12, I have not found any dates other than the statement of those years. While I retrieved most of the information that I have from reading the minutes of the IBWC and by downloading material (including free digitized books of the era), there is also a good reference book called "Restless River, International Law and the Behavior of the Rio Grande". by Jerry E. Mueller. 1975. Texas Western Press, El Paso, TX, that explains the history. Pages 64, 66, 74 and 87 contain a table of figures and some illustrative drawings. Some land cuts are not detailed in the list of areas that I posted on the Talk page. For example, the drawing on p. 87 of Mueller's book shows approx. 25 cuts that were transferred under the 1933 rectification treaty. In addition there were about 7 cuts that were transferred during the river straightening at Presidio (US) and Ojinaga (Mexico) following the 1970 treaty. I'll provide some more of the details that I have found on the Talk page within a few days. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I see you don't have time to re-examine the dates of governors assuming and leaing office. Would you mind if I wrote at EAR about the issue? --Синкретик (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Golbez, While i acknowledge your mild sympathy to N/K and i really appreciate your honesty However, i'm trying to argue within the points that Wikipedia has made. Referring to N/K Vs Artsakh issue, same thing happened with article about Ararat vs Agri dagi where its clearly used Ararat since that is commonly used term. Same applies here even armenian media uses Nagorno Karabagh. The second point i believe is important to stress is that Nagoro Karabagh is NOT a recognized territory even by Armenia so by mentioning it status shows the Neutrality of this point since not mentioning might show biased point or make the reader believe it is recognized territory. Agulani (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Golbez. Further to the conversation we have had regarding Somaliland (you know where so no need to link), I would like you to know that I am involved in a similar discussion at Talk:Kosovo#Categorisation. Definitely WP:TLDR at this point and due to my edits I admit, but I would like you to know what come what may on either article, I am not intentionally forum-shaping (though I appreciate it may look like it on first inspection). Thank you. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Golbez,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Canada provinces evolution 2.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 1, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-07-01. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions! I'll post my responses both here and on my talk page.
You say that the agreement of June 15 1904 specifies a 30 meter circle around the lighthouse; I don't see this in the text, and my source doesn't include the maps. Where did you find that? Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 9:58 pm, Today (UTC−7)
At https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dxovAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA2304 , it's on the 379th page of the downloaded pdf (or page 370 of the Google Books GUI), which is page 2304 of the actual volume, "Investigation of Panama Canal Matters..." of the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals. Citation includes: "INFORMAL PROVISIONAL DELIMITATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OP THE CANAL ZONE (See 1904 Ann. Rept. 78 and 91-93), Signed at Panama June 15, 1904 (Senate Doc. No. 401, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. III, p. 2300)"
Also, just to be sure I'm reading it right: The order of December 22, 1904, is moving territory from Panama City and to Canal Zone, right? --Golbez (talk) 10:14 pm, Today (UTC−7)
The December 22, 1904, reference is a recommendation by the Isthmian Canal Commission Executive Committee that instructs General Davis to arrange the described transfer of territory. Although it seems to make sense, the passage in the ICC minutes for 12/22/04 does not explicitly say it’s from Panama City to the Canal Zone. I think we would need to confirm that it was followed up with an arrangement with Panama. The passage on page 284 states:
Eight years later, the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912, gave the President great leeway and power to change the delimitation of the Canal Zone. However, in 1904 it also would seem that Executive Branch (ICC) approval given to Davis to implement his written plan would mean that the "arrangement" was a fait accompli. (In particular in the 1912 act:
Also [this might go on for a while], you wrote, "By giving the directional coordinates for the boundary of the city, the 1914 agreement did enclave Punta Paitilla. The first boundary point was on the Pacific shore of Punta Paitilla and crossed that promontory to attach to the next point.". Did you have a map or did you run the coordinates yourself, or is this just hopeful thinking? :) --Golbez (talk) 10:18 pm, Today (UTC−7)
I should have said 1904. Punta Paitilla was enclaved in the 1904 agreement, and then was de-enclaved by the 1914 agreement’s metes and bounds for the new boundary . On page 2302 of the above 1904 volume, it is stated, ”Beginning on the shore line of the Pacific Ocean at a stake driven above high-water mark on Punta Paitilla, thence on a straight line northwesterly to a similar stake driven upon the summit of Cerro Pelado …” The map that appears in the Canal Zone Record newspaper along with the 1914 agreement shows both the old and new Canal Zone boundaries with Panama City. On the map, the tip of Punta Paitilla is crossed by the old boundary.
Jeff in CA (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you for your contribution to a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hello again, just wanted to let you know that i should have access to some rather large legal databases starting next month, so theres a good chance i might be able to answer some of the remaining questions that are left regarding the guano islands for the US territorial evolution page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Golbez. You reverted N0n3up twice on United States, the second time with a shouty edit summary stating "i'm too tired to block you because i'll do a bad job of it. but hey champ: CLEARLY THERE'S NO CONSENSUS BECAUSE EVERYONE HERE DISAGREES WITH YOU. KEEP THIS UP AND YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLOCKHEADED ABOUT THIS." Three minutes later you blocked. Your own edit is still the latest in the history. The edit summaries of both your reverts of N0n3up contained block warnings; you haven't warned him otherwise, so I don't know what your "You were warned" means. I don't like your conduct in this; you speak of being too tired, and I assume that's the reason for it. You edit warred, with pretty damn rude edit summaries, and then blocked another edit warrior. I suggest you did do a bad job of this block, as you said you would. And the way you've been power-speaking and triumphing over him on his page since the block is inappropriate. You're an admin, you're supposed to model good behaviour. Please unblock N0n3up. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, as I was the recipient of one of your recent administrative threats (simply for reiterating my opinion and not for vandalizing, edit-warring, or inserting my brilliant POV insight in a WP article), I'd suggest that perhaps we're simply a bit more direct on this side of the Atlantic -- and far less willing to make nice with the really bad boys and girls of Wikipedia. I have often wondered why European admins on EN-WP seek to support and indulge editors who have broken virtually all the rules (both written and unwritten) of WP editorial decorum, while finding time to hector little editors like me, or admins who forget to be 100% courteous.Mason.Jones (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you checked google books to see if the Calif House or Senate Journal from those years is available?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Golbez, your comments at Talk:United States#Redundant regarding N0n3up are incivil and disruptive and honestly I'm shocked that an admin would enter a talk page discussion in order to disrupt it. I see that you have an axe to grind with N0n3up but this is the sort of behaviour one expects from a brand new editor who doesn't understand how collaborative editing works. If you don't like them, then just avoid them continuing to harass them by disrupting discussions isn't going to achieve anything constructive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
According to things said on the House floor, speaker.gov, and Speaker Ryan's twitter, feed, Boehner was the 53rd and Ryan is the 54th Speaker. This seems as thought the House numbering convention lists each once, and repeat service is not numbered. This means a renumbering of all 54 Speakers, and the list on the Speaker page. Thought I'd give you a heads up, and maybe you can start work on that, I'll chip in too. Spartan7W § 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you should run for bureaucrat again, pretty sure you'll make it. CatcherStorm talk 10:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the source you use for the bancos in Banco Convention of 1905 that don't have minutes? --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I provided my response to your questions at my talk page. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can you modify the Cambodian map to include Tbong Khmum Province like this one? Thanks. SovanDara 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to see what it would look like, I overlaid a current map of the U.S.-Mexico border in the El Paso-Juarez Valley (over the entire distance of the 1935-38 Rio Grande Rectification) with a tracing of the border as it existed well prior to the rectification (and before the 20 banco exchanges done there). I obtained the tracing of the old border from 1908 and 1894 USGS maps that are available at the USGS website. I have shared the file I made here and here. In this SVG file, I used three layers. The current border from OpenStreetMaps (aquamarine color) is overlaid with the 1908 border in black (the northern half of the tracing) and the 1894 border also in black (the southern half of the tracing). Perhaps you might find this helpful in your efforts on the territorial acquisitions mapping project. Jeff in CA (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello mr. Golbez. I decided to write for you, because the article about the city of Shusha protected from editing it you. If you go down today on the talk page - , you will see that there are participants that do not mind adding the original emblem in the article. I thought that you move up, but you somehow dropped the idea. Farid (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you please do something about Rovshanaliyev? His account is only a couple days old and it appears to be a vandalism only account. Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Mr, Golbez, please, stop vandalize the page !!! if you don't have information about laws and status Autonomous Republics then you can find many sources from the web and learn on it.... also you can learn it from this official source: http://www.constcourt.gov.az/laws/23 (Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan: Article 10. Symbols of the Nakhchivan Autonomous state.) Freedom Wolfs (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here and feel free to participate. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Golbez, can you please look at the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article? An Azeri user is constantly changing the military budget from the current 2016 number to the 2014 number, for some reason. I have told them it is incorrect and have warned them to no avail. Also i think i might have violated my 1 revert a day by a couple of hours so if i have to be suspended then so be it. Ninetoyadome (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed the new project your working on, don't forget that Tartarstan also declared itself a sovereign state on August 30, 1990, before ceding most of its sovereignty back to Russia by treaty in 1994 and then completely surrendering what was left of its indepenedence in 2002.XavierGreen (talk) Sounds good, there were a few changes in the 1920's, the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic which had been a Russian vassal/puppet state was annexed in 1925 and added to the Turkmen ASSR, as was the Khorezm People's Soviet Republic. The Tuvan People's Republic was a Soviet Satillite state which maintained dejure independence to 1944, when it was annexed by the Soviet Union. Also the Soviet Union assumed Japan's lease over Dalian (aka port Arthur), and possessed sovereignty over the concession territory there until it was relinquished to the People's Republic of China in 1955. Likewise the soviets maintained a concession territory in Hanko, Finland to 1947 when it was exchanged for Porkkalanniemi which the soviets retained to January 1956.XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
As one of the editors involved in the recent expansion of Territorial evolution of the United States, you are an involved editor, and probably should not have been the one to block Onfloatcandles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice that you indefinitely fully protected Karabakh 4 months ago. It looks like there was never really any problem from autoconfirmed accounts. Do you think the protection could be lowered to semi, or even dropped altogether? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Governors of Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Wells. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Golbez. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see my response to your last edit on my talk page, two hours after the time of your edit. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Golbez.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Golbez. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.