| Revision as of 09:59, 18 May 2015 view sourceDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators263,889 edits →off-wiki harassment: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,134,948 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (192 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives|search=yes|collapsed=yes}} | ||
| {{nobots}} | |||
| == Get well soon == | |||
| Sorry to see the note on the top of this page. At least you were allowed back last year and got in 278 edits. Hope to see you back sometime in 2023. ] (]) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kaffeeklatsch update== | |||
| I have ] that were here. All the brouhaha had died down. If it fires up again in the future, I'll take care of it then. ] (]) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I am back. Worked on (still working on, actually) a few things with my doctors and I'm feeling quite a lot better. Knock wood, it sticks. I created a new article today. Would you like to look it over? It's about Amy Kelly, author of ''Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings''. It needs a little more work, but I think it's a good start. I'll probably take a break for a bit... Don't want to overdo it. ] (]) ] (]) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=Viriditas advised to stay off my talk page}} | |||
| ::Super. If you can improve on that you're a better writer than me. Based on "evidences of seriousness of purpose and promise of success" I recommend you for the honor roll of WikiProject historical biography writers. Prose of this quality has not appeared on Misplaced Pages in many a long day. | |||
| == Human self-reflection needed == | |||
| ::I took a look at the lead of ] and it cracked me up a bit. After fifteen years of marriage and two daughters her husband agreed to an annulment (heaven forbid royalty ever divorce) on the grounds of ] within the fourth degree (but why was the marriage allowed in the first place, and it took 15 years to figure that out?) So then she just remarries other royalty committing the same crime in the third degree! I can see how that's fodder for a best-selling book (and maybe a TV miniseries too). Sure, take it easy, no need to work harder than you feel up to. – ] (]) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::What kicked this off was hubby and I were watching ''The Lion in Winter'' (one of our favorite "Christmas" movies). Then we got to talking about Eleanor. He likes to read historical nonfiction, so I said, You should read ''Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings''. And I bought him a used copy. So he's sitting there looking at it, and then his phone, and he said, There's no Misplaced Pages article on Amy Kelly. And I said, What? And there you go! | |||
| :::Thanks for the positive feedback. I truly appreciate it. BTW, what is the "Review" process? It doesn't leave anything in the reviewer's history. I've always wondered about that. ] (]) | |||
| ::::There are multiple review processes. One is ]. Another is ] (see ]). Another is ] (see ] – you too may apply to join the ]). Another is ] (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my that I marked revision 1136740705 of page ] patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently , plus administrators). And then there's ], which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! ''']'''. – ] (]) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see. I was aware of peer reviews, but not all the others. Thanks for explaining - and for your kind words. ] (]) | |||
| == Pending Proposal for Kessler Foundation == | |||
| :''A member of this committee has closed the SPI that I opened, commenting that the evidence was "vastly insufficient to support a sockpuppetry claim." Part of the reason that I presented my evidence there is that I thought it quite convincing. I respectfully ask the whole committee to consider the evidence, rather than have the decision made by one arbitrator, whose answer at SPI indicates that they have already made up their mind about me.'' | |||
| Hi. I see you’re a member of the WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. I’ve made a number of proposals to update the article about ], a charity that supports people with disabilities. Several have been reviewed but a few remain. The request is posted here ]. I have a conflict of interest, and do the edits myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these? I appreciate your time. ] (]) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Lightbreather, I don't think you are stupid or incompetent, but this comment tells me you should stay away from Misplaced Pages for a while. Seven different editors commented on the quality of the evidence you offered at the SPI and all agreed that it was quite possibly the worst evidence they had ever seen in the history of SPI. For you to think this lack of evidence is "quite convincing" tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is in this context and how it works. If you would like to correct your error, I would recommend finding a checkuser you trust and have them walk you through the entire process. That would be a good way for you to learn why what you think is "quite convincing" is in fact, non-evidence. Other heuristics that will greatly help improve your thinking include ] and the concept of ]. There's also the general idea of a "sniff test", which Wiktionary defines as "an informal reality check of an idea or proposal, using one's common sense or sense of propriety". I don't think you lack common sense or propriety, but you do seem to get carried away in the moment and do things without thinking them through. Next time, take a deep breath, apply Occam's razor, attempt to falsify your hypothesis, and ''sniff'' it (metaphorically speaking) for soundness. If you had truly done this, you would have never proposed the SPI in the first place. Try not to act on every thought that comes into your head. Remember, humans have a reputation for excelling at ]. Erroneous pattern matching can often be categorized as ]. In your favor, ] argues that there are survival benefits to forming beliefs based on erroneous pattern matching. The point is to know when your brain is doing this and to filter accordingly. ] (]) 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I don't remember joining a medicine task force. Good luck with your proposals. ] (]) | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| :''It was already proved last night that at least one editor whom I have suspected of being a sock is a sock. I didn't slap my evidence together; it took a lot of time. And no-one has given details about why the evidence that I gave for Gaijin42/Godsy is "insufficient" or not "solid" enough.'' | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| Lightbreather, you suspected EChastain of being Sue Rangell, but the account was blocked for being a likely sock of Mattisse not Sue Rangell. As for your evidence, many editors on the SPI gave you explicit details why your evidence against Godsy and Gaijin was insufficient, so your claim that they didn't is quite disturbing. Here are five diffs from one user alone giving you explicit details. If you continue to engage in this kind of denial you're probably going to end up banned. ] (]) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :Viriditas, please stay off my talk page now. ] (]) 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == ] arbitration case: special arangements == | |||
| </div> | |||
| Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the ] arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that: | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 --> | |||
| == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
| {{Ivmbox|1=1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the ]. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the ] to ''link'' to material on the /Evidence page. | |||
| <section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
| 2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans. | |||
| :''] '' | |||
| Dear Wikimedian, | |||
| 3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages. | |||
| You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
| 4. Similar arrangements apply to ] and the ].}} | |||
| The original announcement can be found ]. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) via ] (]) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:L235/sandbox&oldid=661834298 --> | |||
| This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
| == TWL Questia check-in == | |||
| The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
| Hello! | |||
| Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
| You are receiving this message because ] has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to ]. This is a brief update to remind you about that access: | |||
| On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
| *Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to ]. | |||
| *'''When your account expires you can reapply for access at ].''' | |||
| *Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. | |||
| *Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, ] and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources. | |||
| ] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out . The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Misplaced Pages Library can offer. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| <small> Delivered by ] (]), on behalf of {{noping|National Names 2000}} 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Questia/Check_in/List&oldid=655573416 --> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| *{{u|ChrisGualtieri}}, I don't think you got my last communique about this. A year ago or more I had a personal, ''trial'' membership. When I cancelled that I actually cancelled my Misplaced Pages account instead. Can I get it back, because now I have neither. ] (]) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| ::* Any personal trial membership is completely separate then the free one which was provided. Even the Misplaced Pages ones are completely separate between codes and require signing up again, from scratch, and cannot be kept or extended from even prior free memberships. ] (]) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| {{hat|reason=ArbCom SPI talk}} | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Continuing the SPI on the case talk page == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I'd like you to remove that please, it's completely inappropriate. You need to follow Roger's advice or drop it, but not use the talk page to continue pressing it. Thanks. ] (]) 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :To what are you referring? ] (]) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::My responses to {{u|Gaijin42}}? If Gaijin42 removes his remarks about the SPI, I will be happy to remove my replies to his remarks. Or maybe he could move them to the evidence page, so I may rebut them there? ] (]) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm referring to everything from "@Gaijin42: My evidence against you includes" to " case will consider my response to you and read that SPI." specifically. Re-raising your SPI on the talk page is inappropriate. Commenting on that SPI is not the same thing. ] (]) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dougweller: At 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC), after my SPI was closed by a lone member of the committee, I asked the committee to consider reviewing the evidence as part of the case. Roger Davies gave an ambiguous answer. After EChastain was found to be a sock, I asked Euryalus if he would object to the committee reviewing the SPI. Gaijin42's comments about the SPI at 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC) were ''after'' all of the above, and I've still seen no evidence that the committee together has discussed my request. | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::::I respectfully ask again that the committee discuss letting the SPI stay. The foci/loci of dispute with me and these other editors are gun control and GGTF/gender. If the committee decides that the SPI will not be considered and if Gaijin42 deletes the comments he made about the SPI at/after 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC), then I will delete my replies to him. If his comments are to stand, they should be moved to the evidence page. ] (]) 18:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
| ::::::Roger is a co-drafter and we agree on this. I'm going to hat it now. ] (]) 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe others have already entered the SPI and your comments about it into evidence, so it doesn't make much sense for me to duplicate it. However, that does seem like the opportunity is already there for you to rebut that evidence by others (assuming your space permits). Ill strike the portion that specifically critiques the evidence you raised, but not the rest of the commentary. ] (]) 18:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gaijin, there is a paragraph at the top of the evidence talk page that begins in big, bold letters: '''Behaviour on this page'''. I believe every post I've made on that page has honored the expectations spelled out in that paragraph. Where do your comments like, ''In light of the SPI filed against me, I guess whatever detente LB and I had achieved was illusory'', and ''In addition to being a) wrong, b) wasting your limited space, c) (perhaps more importantly) wasting everyone's patience - I'm not sure what you think you are going to get out of pursuing this godsy thing so aggressively'' fall in relation to page expectations? | |||
| ::::I respectfully ask that if you have a beef with me, take it to the evidence page and provide diffs, otherwise, delete your evidence talk-page comments as they are contrary to case-page behavioral guidelines. ] (]) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I respectfully decline. I didn't have a beef with you. I submitted evidence in support of you (including your EChastain accusation, and a defense against the second socking accusation during the GGTF case) I also supported your request regarding the iBans in evidence. | |||
| :::::For the past several months we have gotten along fine, and had several pleasant exchanges. I spent a decent amount of time working with you to clean up your google-footprint a while ago. In spite of this, you apparently have a beef with me, regarding a content dispute that happened a '''year and a half ago''', and that I am '''already sanctioned for'''. | |||
| :::::I mentioned the change in situation ("illusory") as commenting on why I added additional evidence - I had refrained out of respect for our (then) improved relationship. The second bit ("in addition") is not "evidence" against you, nor a rebuttal, its merely a comment that I don't see the point of what you are doing, since even if you were proven correct on that point, it doesn't materially improve your situation. | |||
| :::::Do you really not see how you are piling the wood at your own pyre here? One of the main accusations against you are that you carry grudges/vendettas, and that you don't drop the stick. Even if 100% of the evidence was somehow excluded, your conduct during this case proves the allegations against you admirably. | |||
| :::::Seriously, file an SPI, whatever - I've filed dozens, and I understand your paranoia, especially in light of our original interactions. But when many-multiple editors, admins, and arbs tell you "this is not sufficient", to appeal it 2,3,4,5,6 times - it only proves that the only opinion you value is your own. | |||
| :::::Again, for the record, I am not Godsy. He may or may not be someone's sock, but it isn't mine. ] (]) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''I spent a decent amount of time working with you to clean up your google-footprint a while ago.'' Yes you did, and I thanked you. However, when I said that a tech-savvy third party was messing with me, and that it might even be you, you said you weren't offended that I might suspect you. | |||
| ::::::Now that you've shared the google-footprint thing and I've shared this third-party thing, I'd like no more mention of our private discussions. ] (]) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Removed some of your evidence == | |||
| Hi Lightbreather. At the Arbitration Committee's direction, I have removed certain parts of your evidence. You are instructed to not reinstate any content removed without the permission of an arbitrator or clerk, and you are further instructed to not mention the Gaijin42 SPI. You may appeal this by email to the clerks or the arbitrators. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 19:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*What email address do I use for the arbitrators? functionaries-en or ? ] (]) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*If you wish to email the arbitrators and explicitly not the clerks, {{nospam|arbcom-l|lists.wikimedia.org}} is the one to email. Thanks, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Is there one that goes to arbcom and clerks? Is that functionaries-en? ] (]) 00:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Clerks-l goes to all current arbitrators, all current clerks, and some former arbitrators. Hope that answers your question, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 03:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*It's been brought to my attention on the clerks-l list that I was wrong to direct you to email there. It is possible that another clerk or arbitrator may soon request that you post to the /Evidence talk page instead. My apologies. Thank you. --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Lightbreather, in light of the removal of this material, I have recalculated your evidence word count which has been significantly reduced but is still over the limit. It would help if you only included one signature in your comments, at the end of your section. Since the evidence will all be read at same time, it is not crucial for the arbitrators to know when you added which sections of your statement. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == off-wiki harassment == | |||
| That's disgusting. Are you aware of ]? ] (]) 09:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024
Get well soon
Sorry to see the note on the top of this page. At least you were allowed back last year and got in 278 edits. Hope to see you back sometime in 2023. wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am back. Worked on (still working on, actually) a few things with my doctors and I'm feeling quite a lot better. Knock wood, it sticks. I created a new article today. Would you like to look it over? It's about Amy Kelly, author of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. It needs a little more work, but I think it's a good start. I'll probably take a break for a bit... Don't want to overdo it. Lightbreather (talk) Lightbreather (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Super. If you can improve on that you're a better writer than me. Based on "evidences of seriousness of purpose and promise of success" I recommend you for the honor roll of WikiProject historical biography writers. Prose of this quality has not appeared on Misplaced Pages in many a long day.
- I took a look at the lead of Eleanor of Aquitaine and it cracked me up a bit. After fifteen years of marriage and two daughters her husband agreed to an annulment (heaven forbid royalty ever divorce) on the grounds of consanguinity within the fourth degree (but why was the marriage allowed in the first place, and it took 15 years to figure that out?) So then she just remarries other royalty committing the same crime in the third degree! I can see how that's fodder for a best-selling book (and maybe a TV miniseries too). Sure, take it easy, no need to work harder than you feel up to. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- What kicked this off was hubby and I were watching The Lion in Winter (one of our favorite "Christmas" movies). Then we got to talking about Eleanor. He likes to read historical nonfiction, so I said, You should read Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. And I bought him a used copy. So he's sitting there looking at it, and then his phone, and he said, There's no Misplaced Pages article on Amy Kelly. And I said, What? And there you go!
- Thanks for the positive feedback. I truly appreciate it. BTW, what is the "Review" process? It doesn't leave anything in the reviewer's history. I've always wondered about that. Lightbreather (talk)
- There are multiple review processes. One is Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Another is Recent changes (see Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol). Another is Misplaced Pages:Pending changes (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes – you too may apply to join the 7,813 reviewers). Another is Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my patrol log that I marked revision 1136740705 of page Amy Kelly patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently 726 members, plus administrators). And then there's Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see. I was aware of peer reviews, but not all the others. Thanks for explaining - and for your kind words. Lightbreather (talk)
- There are multiple review processes. One is Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Another is Recent changes (see Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol). Another is Misplaced Pages:Pending changes (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes – you too may apply to join the 7,813 reviewers). Another is Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my patrol log that I marked revision 1136740705 of page Amy Kelly patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently 726 members, plus administrators). And then there's Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Pending Proposal for Kessler Foundation
Hi. I see you’re a member of the WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. I’ve made a number of proposals to update the article about Kessler Foundation, a charity that supports people with disabilities. Several have been reviewed but a few remain. The request is posted here Talk:Kessler_Foundation#Kessler Foundation Edit Requests – October 2022. I have a conflict of interest, and do the edits myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these? I appreciate your time. Dogmomma529 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't remember joining a medicine task force. Good luck with your proposals. Lightbreather (talk)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)