Loading AI tools
|
November 2014 to November 2015 November 2015 to November 2016 November 2016 to March 2018 |
- Try to rise above yourselves and edit from a wp:npov position, that is what will truly make this project great, all else , all other editing is destructive. ] Govindaharihari (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- You might revert me but I will never revert you. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I mostly review edits, I also comment on some discussion, I don't add much content as I find it too disruptive with reverting and edit warring causing me to raise my stress levels and waste my time. If you have any concerns with my reviews please just ask and I will revert, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- treat each other with respect and civility - this, one of the wiki five pillars, treat each other with respect and civility Wikipedia:5P4 it is a win win for all editors here and for the wikipedia project , something for us all to focus on Govindaharihari (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
"Welcome to Wikipedia!"
Thank you for hundreds of welcome messages, for watching over biographies of living persons, for improving articles such as Vera Sidika and Anjem Choudary, for "trimming fanzone content". for the request to return, for aspiring to high mountains, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aww, thanks so much Gerda. What a delightful message. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1878 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
2019
 |
Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, not at all late User:Gerda Arendt - you are always on time amigo. Best wishes and good luck this year and every year. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for thanks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry for vandalizing bro. I realized it was a mistake. We good? TheGoodHuman (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, no worries. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion (and for taking time to notice the edits were in good faith). I will take a few days to make sure it is a well thought out decision but most likely I will just quit (either via VANISH or simply log off). I don't think it is the same project anymore. Fireice (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I wish you well and happy times Fireice. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 |
I do not necessarily disagree with your first point, and certainly, agree with your second! ——SerialNumber54129 15:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
I don't agree with your premise but I do appreciate your efforts to improve the project.
HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 18:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is fine to disagree. Thanks much High. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The FLYING SOLO poster jpg you removed from the page is ours. We can do with it what we want and can take whatever steps are necessary to make it usable. Please kindly direct us how to do that. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:CTF99 (talk • contribs)
- Hi User:CTF99 I didn't remove it, it was deleted on the wp commons website. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flying_solo.jpg Govindaharihari (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Where can we go to fix the permission for it? ThxCTF99 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- wp:commons - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history carefully you will notice that I was adding a date of birth to an article whose Wikidata entry contains the same information, and whose German and Portuguese version already contain the same information. I provided an additional source with an authority file from the Library of Congress. The information was reverted at first erroneously claiming the Library of Congress did not contain the full DOB (of course it does), then that Library of Congress is not a reliable source by our WP:RS policy, and finally that the Library of Congress is somehow a primary source even though they explicitly refer to the source for their information. Yes, that lead to a back-on-forth of revisions, but calling this an 'edit war' is a stretch of the definition. --bender235 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want to discuss this with you here thanks. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at the BLP Noticeboard regarding the Halsey Minor article. Both you and the other editor said the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasonliveplanet/draftHM
proposed draft] would probably be better and more encyclopedic than the current lawsuit-oriented page. However, I wasn’t sure what the next steps are. What are the next steps to getting the draft implemented and/or otherwise addressing the issue? The article is affecting his reputation in the real-world so I am eager to get it fixed promptly while following Wikipedia’s rules. Jasonliveplanet (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jasonliveplanet: Hi there. A note on the article talkpage with your comment here and request any objections to replacing the article with the new draft may be a good starting place. I have opened a chat for you there. Talk:Halsey_Minor#request_for_draft_article_replacment - Govindaharihari (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! I do have two replies to your note:
- My call for TheDJ's resignation and re-RfA has nothing to do with Fram. It was in response to a statement made by TheDJ that said "I have ZERO trust in this community". Any admin who declares an open disdain for the community should resign, and that's something I don't think anyone should disagree with. I took his words at face value, and I have since clarified to him that I would have no problem with him if he didn't actually mean that. But I stand behind the sentiments that an admin who openly resents the community cannot continue to serve without either resigning or reconfirming their adminship.
- TheDJ's resignation has nothing to do with my request. TheDJ dismissed my call for his resignation, and I was actually thoroughly chastised for even bringing it up at BN. TheDJ resigned in response to the resysopping of Floquenbeam, saying he couldn't support a community that undermines WMF staff.
I won't pretend things didn't get too emotional, and I've actually backed off from the debate—it's been explained to me that on the off chance that there is a legitimate victim, we should err on the side of that victim, rather than buying into the alleged abuser's story of malice and corruption, and that is simply not something that I can argue against. I regret not coming to that conclusion on my own, I regret getting so caught up that I attacked some people personally, I regret creating a sideshow at DJ's desysop request at BN. I would point to any of that as a low point. But, the act of calling for the resignation of an admin who doesn't support the community is not something that I regret. The community governs this project, not admins. Admins merely exercise authority that has been delegated to them by the community. If you think an otherwise-good admin who doesn't trust or support the community (his words) should be an admin, we can agree to disagree on that, that's fine. You're not the only one who thinks that. TheDJ appears to have resigned because he didn't think it was just a vocal minority, and he wanted no part in that. He resigned because he disagreed. I don't mind you hosting anything that I said, but I think it misrepresents the situation to not acknowledge the two points made above. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Swarm - Thanks for responding, per your comments and TheDJ's clarification below I have ammended my comment and removed that you had any part in the resignation, please accept my apologies for that, I understand you recognise you got carried away and we all learn from our mistakes, that is good, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Govindaharihari, Swarm For clarity. I support Swarm's reading of the situation. I hadn't even read any of Swarm's comments before I turned in my rights. I will say that the 48 hours of comments by multiple people after that moment led me to deleting my user page and is also the reason that I have not made any statements further clarifying my position and actions just yet. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- TheDJ - many thanks for your clarification DJ. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's Geni, not Jeni, Govindaharihari. starship.paint (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Ta Govindaharihari (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Doc James, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 |
You have your own distinct approach to editing here. but that's simply you being you. All the best Govindaharihari. starship.paint (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |
- @Starship.paint: Yes, thanks very much. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, please try to refrain from filing arbitration cases prematurely in the future. The situation between TonyBallioni and Geni may have been tense, but the two administrators were in the process of resolving the matter between themselves without any further action being warranted. Arbitration is strictly a measure of last resort, to be requested only when other means of dispute resolution have been tried and failed. Filing a case request for a disagreement that was on the verge of being settled, particularly when every commentator was explicitly asking you not to do so, accomplishes nothing and serves only to add yet another layer of drama where none is needed.
I don't think you acted with any bad intentions, and I'm sure you meant well. It's just something that I think you should try to keep in mind going forward. Kurtis (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ok @Kurtis:Many thanks for the polite advice which I will take on board in future, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to follow up what I said earlier. In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not suggesting that you should never file an arb case request. Just remember to research the history of a dispute as best you can first, and then decide whether arbitration is the only viable means of bringing about a resolution. I saw your comment on the Eric Corbett RfAR, and I thought it would be a good idea to reassure you that you really didn't do anything overly wrong. It was just a newbie misunderstanding. ;) Kurtis (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks Kurtis. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The request for arbitration User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv🍁 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hallo Govindaharihari, you reverted my edit, this was wrong, please read carefully. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- CRISTIANO RONALDO is not a correct addition in capitals. There were such a lot of poor edits there I have reverted back to the last apparent good version, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't yet looked that deeply (only a glance), but this might be a Kaverikukku matter; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaverikukku/Archive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, You had previously been of help over at the BLP Noticeboard so I was hoping you could look into something. This edit (diff) vandalized the Wikipedia article about this individual, by adding the words "despite having no class" to it. I work at the same company as this person so for WP:COI reasons I'd prefer not to revert the vandalism myself. Are you able to revert that vandalism? I know WP guidelines suggest that anyone can revert vandalism, but I really prefer to refrain from making any direct edits to articles related to my employer in any way. Kind Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please disregard the above, as another editor reverted the vandalism. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- @JeffreyArthurVA: Hello . Good that it was reverted and good that you keep yourself free from wp:coi concerns. It is correct that anyone can revert vandalism but in doing so you would leave yourself open to involved claims and one persons interpretation of vandalism may not be the same as others. I would have reverted if I was online, feel free to ask me any further concerns you have and I will look at them if online, also a post at the wp:blpn will get action. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
It's impossible to judge the assertion by Demon0143 that the image of Godse was politically motivated, but he isn't mentioned in that article...in fact, there's nothing about India before the 21st century at all! That seems like sufficient grounds for deleting the image. WQUlrich (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @WQUlrich: - yes, looking again, I agree, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Govindaharihari: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
thanks much DBigXray. Love and light to all. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 |
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Great page - Good to connect Sulemansacranie (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) |
- New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
- New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
- If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- thanks Insertcleverphrasehere, I'll have a look at the instructions page and if I can I will help out when I can. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for the nice welcome. I inserted a section on the Dunning-Kruger Wikipedia Page in 2018 but edited nothing until last week when I saw someone had rewritten that section and distorted the meaning, so I updated it. A problem I did not recall having in 2018 was organizing the References and ending up with duplicated citations at the bottom of the full article. I think before that employing the automatic wizard feature allowed the program to recognize that the reference was already in the list, and the correct citation number was assigned in the text. I'm going in next to see if I can clean up the references cited section. I've not been able to figure out how to do that cleanup yet.. Browndog1212 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. I have reverted your comments at BN. You are free to criticize the activity policy or question a user with advanced permissions as to if they need them, but you are not free to phrase it in such a way that is an attack on them. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Revert all you like but this was not a personal attack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&curid=2530810&diff=952924166&oldid=952923623 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was a vile sentiment to post, and I would have removed it as well but TonyBallioni hadn't beat me to it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- There was nothing vile about it at all, ponyo Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's unfortunate that you believe that your comment was acceptable. There are other editors, such as Dennis Brown and Bradv, who share your concerns regarding activity levels that were able to express themselves clearly without demeaning a fellow volunteer. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The general idea is that you can be critical of someone’s actions without being rude, combative, or making them seem somehow less. As an example: I could have phrased this much more directly, but instead I tried to appeal to the broad principles without commenting directly on you as a person. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I always try to be non combatative, however it is a joke that these advanced permissions are happily granted. My comment was not personal to the user , more to the laughable conditions, a joke as I said. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- There was nothing vile about it at all, ponyo Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was a vile sentiment to post, and I would have removed it as well but TonyBallioni hadn't beat me to it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also think that to accuse me of a vile comment is a personal attack but , whaterver Govindaharihari (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was pretty rude and unnecessary in order to make your point. The current policy allows for this, so you are always welcome to start an RFC to change the Crat policy. Demeaning other editors isn't the solution and accomplishes nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- this was the post - Fifty edits in the last ten years, get real, why you even have sysop priviledges is beyond a joke - it was not rude it was honest and it certainly was not vile . Govindaharihari (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Honesty and rudeness are not mutually exclusive. We frequently temper our words because other people have feelings and those also matter. You can be honest without insulting someone. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- this was the post - Fifty edits in the last ten years, get real, why you even have sysop priviledges is beyond a joke - it was not rude it was honest and it certainly was not vile . Govindaharihari (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was pretty rude and unnecessary in order to make your point. The current policy allows for this, so you are always welcome to start an RFC to change the Crat policy. Demeaning other editors isn't the solution and accomplishes nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also , I am sick of this attack here, I made one post and I have three editors attacking me here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for either trolling or being so out of sync with community norms on how to interact with others in a discussion that a block is needed, as you did at WP:VPP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)- This type of behaviour after the above is just unacceptable. I’m not sure if you intended it as such, but implying that someone you disagree with is threatening legal action after making a personal attack on them previously isn’t an acceptable standard of conduct on this project. I’m also open to unblocking before this is up if you can agree not to comment on others going forward. This is where the problem comes from. Not a formal unblock condition, but an understanding that the recent comments towards others aren’t okay. If you show this, I’m fine with any administrator unblocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for that but I saw your block notice and never came back to find this offer. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020 and by February 2020 the new name was finally declared to be written everywhere on papers. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms .
Being a Indian resident, i would like to contribute to this new law which was passed by our government .
It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-
(these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old).
5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728 (This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019 )
But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-
6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042
Please help me by putting your vote in the panel discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.
Here is an example on how to put your vote ___________.
- Support
- Strong Support
- Agreed
Click on the edit tab and please copy any 1 vote you want to put from the above or you can put you vote by putting a * star symbol followed by 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' and then writing your word for vote like support, agreed etc and finally closing it with again 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' in the end. Taal Saptak (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I made an edit to the Lucas Cruikshank page earlier today with a brief description of his podcast and a link to the YouTube channel. This was rejected because there is already a link to his YouTube but I'm confused as the channel I linked is separate to his "Lucas" channel. Would it be better to link to the website https://brosbeforehoes.libsyn.com/ instead?
Kittysunshine321 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi and thanks. Could you show me any independant notability for the details to be added? What wikipedia does is report what other sources have reported. Too many primary links start to become promotional rather than reporting other reliable reports. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok then apologies I guess I just thought it was allowed as every other youtuber with a podcast seems to have it listed on their Wikipedia page. Thanks for your response Kittysunshine321 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome to open a discussion to get other opinions on the article talkpage Kittysunshine321 to get other opinions, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
| 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi Govindaharihari, I hope you are well. Regarding your recent edits at Kid Cudi, I'm not sure if you realized but in these three edits you violated the WP:3RR rule, which states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". You did so in less than twenty minutes, but I'm refraining from templating you considering you seem to be an experienced user. Please kindly be more careful in future, especially considering the editors you reverted did nothing wrong; everything was sourced within that Twitter reference, and per WP:TWITTER, self-published sources/tweets/Instagram posts are fine to use, so long as they don't make exceptional claims. Take care. Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. I don't believe blp reviewing is regarded as edit warring, I support all my reviewing edits edits there , feel free to raise any concerns you have . regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thank you so much Gerda Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Gerda, for spreading love as you go. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
You reverted my link to escapism by stating "Sorry, can't accept that without supportiing links". What links do you need to link to Wikipedia's definition of escapism? Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please offer me a link so I can investigate, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
| |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda. I have still the ambition to improve the project, hugs Govindaharihari (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
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.
