User talk:Anakinjmt

Welcome!

Hello, Anakinjmt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent change to Torrie Wilson was reverted. Counterexample #8 of WP:FU specifically prohibits using a fair-use image to depict a living person, as you did. Additionally, the image violated criteria #1 of the policy section. --Yamla 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Okay, so you left on my page how the picture of Torrie Wilson put up goes against WP:FU counter-example #8, as well as #1 on policy. I realize #8 and am okay with that, but #1 is the part I'm confused about. For the record, let me state it here:"

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

"If a free image picture WAS available to us at this time, I could see it. However, until one comes forth, we would only have the option of fair-use, correct? I realize that obviously out there somewhere is a free use picture of Torrie we could use for the top of the page, but I'm talking in general here with ANY picture. Does this make sense?"

No, the option of a fair-use image is not available to us if a free image could be created. That we are currently unaware of any free image is not relevant; a free image could be created and would serve the same purpose, therefore we cannot use a fair-use image. Now, there are levels of free. An image licensed under the creative commons is less free than one released to the public domain, so if the choice is between an image under the creative commons and one released to the public domain, we must use the public domain image. --Yamla 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert original research into Wikipedia. Please provide a reliable source when adding new information into Wikipedia. Note that information that you add without sources that could be misleading can and will be removed. Thank you! semper fi — Moe 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to insert original research into Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Votes on the talk page are moot when there is already an established policy, WP:OR, in place and you cannot override that without providing reliable sources. As for other people "doing it" (refering to adding original research into Wikipedia), I suggest you help with the clean-up and not add on to it by creating more crap for us to find sources to. semper fi — Moe 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If PWI and WWE consider him a Triple Crown Champion, prove it, provide a external link outside Wikipedia because anything on Wikiedia cannot be taken as fact until sources have proven. I know you're given me BS right now because JBL said he completed the "grand slam of professional wrestling", he never said anything about Triple Crown and Big Show has never called himself a Triple Crown Champion, only editors on Wikipedia have. I have removed those references as those wrestlers as Triple Crown Champions, but editors like you continue to readd them to the articles without adding sources. The US title isn't counted right now because WWE hasn't recognized it. They have done so on their offical site for the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Tag Titles, I know it doesn't make sense for them to do that, but all we have to go by, we can't publish your and other peoples original thoughts on the subject. It's not up to us to decide that, it's up to WWE to recoginze who is in fact a champion or not. I've been fighting editors on this subject for the last month and most of them got blocked for it or the page protected so they couldn't edit it. I'm prepared to do this with you if you continue on like this. semper fi — Moe 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time nor the patience to distinguish between established editors and trolls here just to argue for arguing sake. I'm in the process of providing a more accurate source or a more detailed on, I'm current deciding on a couple to add. The new revisements, or where they were made, are listed on Grand Slam Champion if I'm not mistaken. Bottomline is, no source, no addition. semper fi — Moe 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see 4 of them on the left side and 3 on the right side. TJ Spyke 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just a little edgy right now over the issue an threw up anyone's name that had those edits. I actually learned yesterday that even if we i get an e-mail from WWE, it's still not a reliable source because it's not on the Internet other that person's inbox on thier e-mail function (and where they may copy and paste that messgae). It's ok in regards to me leaving. Every once and a while I get very stressed in real-life and when I get over-stressed on Wikipedia, I leave it. I'm not sure how I feel about the US title being equal to the IC title. At first I really did think that it belonged on the table, but without anything, except Wikipedia, that said it, I figured it isn't until I could find something. Then after searching I found nothing about it. In short, I really am playing it safe because I think adding things on Wikipedia without a source could hurt it's credibilty. semper fi — Moe 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether you can see the colours but if the text is visible, I have a friend who's red-green colour blind and he can't see the blue text on the heavy blue background. I've reverted both your colour changes on those pages for that reason, the text is more important than the box colour. Feel free to discus changing them but can you refrain from making the colour changes again for the moment. Cheers. Darrenhusted 02:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I saw the discussion after I'd reverted. Darrenhusted 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I highly doubt I'll make admin for around 5000 edits after this whole thing is finally over. I have blatantly and knowingly violated WP:OWN on that article, and continue to do so. While I feel that what I am doing helps the article overall, I have no doubt that the same results would have been achieved, albeit more slowly, by polls and discussions, meaning that in the eyes of those voting in the RfA will see what I did as unnecessary, reckless, potentially destructive, and disruptive to the community. While I feel that this is a worthy sacrifice, most of my anti-vandal tools have been breaking lately, so I am left without an effective synthetic rollback button, and the admin rollback would be really nice to have :(. I appreciate your support throughout this entire episode, and I'm sure that we all share the hope that it ends soon. Peace, -- The Hybrid 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I love using imagery like that. It always seems to get the point across really well ;). Peace, -- The Hybrid 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for making me laugh over at the WrestleMania 23 Talk Page. I think I needed that after what has been going on at that article. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three duels does not a notable set make. Exodia is already noted because of its extended anime story and many appearances. But Final Countdown, Destiny Board, etc, are almost never played in the anime and no one plays AV in real life. The only notable AV is Exodia, and he is listed. The Clawed One 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 6 - October 13 is N/A. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 14. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 14 - October 20 is N/A. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 21. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 21 - October 27 is Hulk Hogan. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

I noticed that you when around and added {{Talkheader}} to a bunch of article talk pages. However, this template, per its own instructions, "should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page. In particular, it should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages.". Under these instructions, I have removed the template from Talk:Manga and suggest that you revert your other edits as well. --Farix (Talk) 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 28 - November 3 is Bobby Eaton . Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Since you asked, I'll try to nutshell this:

Copyright is ownership of an intellectual property, generally an image, song, presentation, or work of prose.

Trademark is the ownership of the right to use an image or phrase (prose or music IIUC) for marketing purposes.

For an example: Captain Marvel

DC holds the copyright to the guy in red with the lightning bolt. It also holds a trademark on the character's visual and the lightning bolt logo.

Marvel holds a copyright to it's various versions of the character. It also holds the trademarks for them and the phrase "Captain Marvel".

This means no one can reprint the Batson stories without DC's approval, or the Mar-vel ones without Marvel's. If such approval is given, it also has to extend to using the characters as a marketing tool.

Further, DC cannot use "Captain Marvel" on its magazine covers.

- J Greb 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Wildroot 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that was the real title of the article published in the Chicago Sun Times. My bad for not letting you know. You must have though of it to be a vadilizer. Wildroot 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(repost + minor edit)

You're thinking of Wikipedia:Original research ("WP:OR") and Wikipedia:Citing sources ("WP:CITE").

OR covers that an editors own view or say-so, is never support for a challenged statement, however skilled and experienced that editor may be. We need actual published sources, not "hearsay". The term "original research" means "work that one has done oneself that hasnt been independently published" but also covers statements of fact based upon all forms of personal view, opinion, statement, deduction, or belief that aren't ultimately derived from nameable independent sources if required.

WP:CITE then says that if asked or needed, you must name the sources so others can check them too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, if you're thinking "how do I know an editor has the qualifications claimed", the answer is you rarely do. You might find the Essjay controversy interesting reading - this has happened in the past and is a salutary lesson. Remember to assume good faith in disputes and discussions though. But that's a good reason why the argument "I have a qualification in X so my word should count" doesn't get much support on the wiki.

That said, a person who is an expert will usually be able to point to highly credible sources from which others can confirm the importance and accuracy of the points they are making and/or refute proposed content that is in error. That's a far better approach, which anyone can verify. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment; just a difference of opinion, it seems. If the IP had just done the first to edits, I would have rolled them back with AGF. But the last edit, when the person took a picture from lower on the page and duplicated it in the infobox had, in my opinion, a twinge of vandalism to it. But it certainly wasn't malicious, and I didn't warn the IP after the revert. Your point is taken though; calling it vandalism might have been a bit harsh, but it was kind of borderline. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 02:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and restate this another way. All I'm asking is that next time, consider the possibility that you might be wrong simply because you might be wrong. Don't consider that you are right simply because the person you are talking to might not know what they are talking about. Since this has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, I've come to your talk page. Hiding T 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.185.34 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally understand how you misread it. I had to go back and forth between the article and its edit page to double-check it myself. Doczilla 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 24 to "nearly real time" because there are 60 minutes of story shown over 55 minutes in any particular episode. Yes, they skip the time during the commercials, but the show ends at 55 minutes after the hour, while it starts directly on the hour. This means that they fudge the time slightly throughout the show to account for this. I personally feel that it is not a huge deal, nor is it a distraction from a narrative standpoint. However, it is not actually in real time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.rosenheim (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on the Amalgam issue. It's a complicated thing, and I've really wanted to make sure we're handling this right. In plain text, I cannot convey enough how seriously I appreciate your thoughtful, concerned analysis. Keep people on their toes! Doczilla (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, your efforts are certainly noticed. I've kept noticing your username for some time when checking articles on my watchlist. From what I've seen, you do good work. It's good to have people particular at the WikiProject Comics talk page too so we can make sure we have some sense of what we're collectively doing around here. Doczilla (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Peter visited what we hope is only a possible future (boy, I hate this writers strike made them end the season already). Hiro has made tiny changes in the past even though he can't mess with any point in history that led to the world in which he lives. When he changes the past, the original version is now an alternate version relative to the timeline in which he lives. Assuming that they have kept the virus from affecting the world, then the future Peter visited will be an alternate timeline relative to the timeline in which they live. I'll be interested to see how they handle the fact that he left the Irish girl in what should now be an alternate timeline that is no longer the future they're heading toward. Doczilla (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it should be included, but most of these character's articles lack a publication history which makes it difficult to determine where exactly it should be mentioned in the article. I figured it would be better to mention it on the their talk page. But I could always add that information to the last sentence of their introduction. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I did a draft of the article in here: Draft. Almost every character from the Minor G/S/H/Rs is featured except those Quidditch players with little involvement (like Montague or Roger Davies) and those characters listed as "Others". I would appreciate your opinion. Lord Opeth (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lively discussion at Talk:Halo 3. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the Halo universe, have you thought about joining WikiProject Halo? Although small in scope, the project has been useful for coordinating improvement efforts. There's still a lot of collective work to do, but, in the past several months, we've been able to get several articles to Good and/or Featured status... and are working on more. — TKD::Talk 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I toss an WP:ILIKEIT accusation at you? No. I gave reasons. You disagree with them. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are about when people don't really give reasons other than personal preference. To even mention something like that, even when you throw in qualifiers like "Sorry, but" and "sounds like", just comes across as belittling the other person's arguments. You can disagree without taking a jab at someone. Doczilla (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to say it. We all refrain from saying all kinds of things about how other people seem to us. Stick to the issues. Doczilla (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) and agree to mediation regarding the re-titling of this article. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that there has been a Request for Arbitration filed in the matter of changing the article title of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)" to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". You can view the current request and make comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sorcerer.27s_Stone_vs._Philosopher.27s_Stone. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the edit you made here:

NrDg, you asked what the big deal was about the pics. I see two things. First, just like Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus is associated with Disney, and a hugely popular Disney franchise too. She does have this squeaky clean image that Vanessa Hudgens had before her photos got out. Disney takes pride in the fact that their stars are clean and wholesome for kids. Lindsay Lohan used to be that way for them, but she then disassociated herself from them and after everything she's gone through, I doubt Disney will knock on her door again. Vanessa Hudgens, quite honestly, got a lucky break from Disney over her pictures. I agree, these pictures of Miley, if they really are her, aren't as bad as the pics Vanessa had out, but they are still potentially damaging because it sort of destroys the good girl image that Disney is trying to promote. Secondly, the fact is, Miley calls herself a born-again Christian. Speaking as a Christian myself, the fact that there's such a positive Christian influence in Hollywood, especially one who is wildly popular and well-known, is encouraging, especially with young girls looking up to her as a role model. Having pictures like that are pretty damning towards that image. It could be considered an embarrassment not just to her and her family, but to other Christians, and having pictures like that would also cause people to go "What's so different about Christians? Miley Cyrus calls herself one and yet she's doing the same things other teenage girls her age are doing, the type of things Christians don't believe in." Pictures like that destroy the positive influence she has, as well as hurt her chances of being a witness for Christians and Christianity, which I believe is what she's trying to be. Taking pictures like that is becoming very commonplace for teenage girls, but it's different when you're a Christian (at least it's supposed to be), and ESPECIALLY when you are in such a high profile spotlight like Miley is. Personally, I hope the pictures aren't her, but I still think they're notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Anyway, hope that helps explain things for you.

You made some valid points (especially about there being a disconnect between the pictures and the faith she claims to believe), and I feel this would make one heck of a blog post. However, the reason some of the editors are a little hesitant right now is that there have been no sources that would be considered reliable that have out-right said "This is Miley". I left my opinion on it a few days ago, about three comments above yours. Thank you. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove your comment from the Miley Cyrus talk page. Other editors and I battled long and hard to keep that hoax out of Wikipedia, and it appeared for no more the 60 seconds during the evening. Mentioning it on the talk page or in the article gives the hoaxer's more exposure than they deserve. If you revert my removal, I won't have strong policy to stand on, so please don't. Just respect the effort we put in, and don't make a mockery of it.Kww (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it back is a violation of WP:BLP, which applies to article space and talk space, as well as enabling the vandals. I've removed it ... again. The hoax was vandalism expressly aimed at WIkipedia. Please do not facilitate 4chan's attacks. Acroterion _(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your question on my talk page Acroterion _(talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea -- maybe someone upset about your afd on the Batman page. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The : and or * indent to indicate how to follow a thread. two equally indented comments are BOTH read as replies to the thread above, and you know this, because by YOUR logic, displacing mine as you do means I'm now replying to you, making my comment nonsensical and leaving me looking like a fucking idiot. You've been around long enough to figure this out, see how it works with others, so I can only conclude you want a fight with me for some reason. Bring it. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my comment because it's clear you're an incredibly uncivil editor, unwilling to use talk page conventions when they interfere with your ego. I came here and EXPLAINED how talk page works. Despite that, your first action after was to again alter the talk page to make my comment look disjointed and like a reply to YOU, when it wasn't. I explained this already, and how to use the talk page. Continuing to insult me all over Wikipedia is a personal attack. Get your act together, and learn HOW to use a talk page. Others will be less impressed by your disruptive behaviors, and yes, interrupting talk page discussions is disruption. ThuranX (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this exchange, and felt the urge to back up ThuranX. Don't pull stunts like this one. It's not the way talk pages work, and, as ThuranX points out, you've been around long enough to know that.Kww (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't around to help out and I certainly appreciate your thinking of me. I am very glad to hear that things have improved. Best, Doczilla _STOMP! 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did we stop removing spoilers from the front page and who made the decision? GoonersWCCF (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person who puts a merge template on an article doesn't need to start a discussion on the talk page. Anyone who wants to talk about it can start the discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You feel for it to review me, perhaps? Just a bold question, but I really need someone to do so. Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anakinjmt. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Abecedare (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 3 Jonas Brothers and a Taylor Swift from editing for persistent failure. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to listen to good music. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may continue to fail; however, you should read our guide to being cool first. Master of Puppets 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some aversion to music that isn't technical or good. That being said, I know what you mean. Good outlook! :) Master of Puppets 03:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --uKER (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this "vandal" change, I know about what's going on in the talk page, and your removal of every other good faith cleanup made no sense whatsoever. Seriously, don't do that again (notice how I actually partially reverted here; as you can see, I brought back Storm per what you suggested). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from User talk:Graemedavis. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just so you know, Graemedavis (talk · contribs) has complained on the talk that your comments were "borderline libellous" and has requested that "Anakinjmt's comment to be taken down - among a lot of unpleasant comment this is the one which may cross a legal line". I responded that that isn't true, but you might want to come by and defend yourself, in case he decides to take this to higher levels. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. I just saw this - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-02/The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Guess this isn't going away. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been reading the recent conversation on there? I feel like I'm talking to myself or something... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page asking for recommendations, and your input would be greatly valued. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mediate this CASE on the MedCabal. However, before I can open the case, I must recieve confirmation that all listed parties agree to the mediation process going forward. Thank You Reubzz (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your idea of trying to gain a project consensus on the dispute is a good idea. It is always preferred for these issues to be dealt with by the community rather than having to proceed with the full mediation process. If the situation does not resolve itself however, mediation would be a reccomended first step. Cheers, Reubzz (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me but i wasn't the one who vandalized gotham city--85.243.65.152 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!