Rednblu

Tools

A to Z... Wikipedia:A to Z... CitationStyleMAJOR... CitationStyleMinor... Policies ... Village_pump ... Power structure ... Sysops ... DelLog ... Surveys ... VanIP ... # ... RfA ... RfC ... RfAr ... Notices

"Only because the people see
So much in land and sky
For which they do not know the cause,
They think Divinities are working there.
If they could but see that
Nothing can be created from nothing,
Then they would advance one more step
Toward the answer that they seek:
Those eternal elements became
Everything that is,
Without interference from Gods."
--Lucretius, "De rerum natura," written about 60 BC

---

After visiting the Galápagos Islands photographed from a NASA satellite above, Charles Darwin in 1859 first published the "cause" for the many forms of life on earth including man, accomplished by natural selection from previous forms without divine intervention.

/Envelope ... /DevelopmentPage ... /=Marker= ... /History ... /Welcome ... /tempMin ... Changes... /Bunker ...

1... 2... 3... 4...

A... B...

---

Topical index ... Utilities ... Edit controls ... Tags ... TeX_markup ... Public domain images ... Math symbols Wikipedians by religion

---

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ... Andrew White, Evolution of Evolution ... History of ideas

---

Archives of this TalkPage

• Archive001 Including archived conversations with Mr. Monk, awaiting Mr. Monk's copy to wherever he would like to memorialize the conversations.

Is "Evolution is fact" an effective pedagogical approach?

Here is a permanent link to some of the discussions. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories commented out

Thanks. Good luck with your project. -Willmcw 01:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Human

Hi Rednblu, I've posted a compromise suggestion for the introduction of Human at Talk:Human#Compromise suggestion. It begins with Pharos' suggestion for the first sentence, which I believe you felt comfortable with, then it moves into the beginning of the current intro, and then discusses abstract reasoning, language, speech, society, and ends with evolution v creation. It's not perfect by any means, but it might get us closer to a version both sides can live with. Your views would be most welcome, particularly if you feel something's missing and can think of a way to work it in. Best, SlimVirgin 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. See Talk:Human/Rednblu. Sorry. Tom Haws 16:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

From my user page: "Currently on Wikiholiday from Human due to a discussion impasse; adding content to User:Hawstom/Chalkboard."

Thanks for the alert. See you at User:Hawstom/Chalkboard.

Duality

The duality (physics) page which you linked to spoke only of wave-particle duality and I removed the page. If you want to link to wave-particle duality, do so. I just guessed you meant dualism and I apologize.

• The duality (physics) page which you linked to spoke only of wave-particle duality and I removed the page. If you want to link to wave-particle duality, do so. I just guessed you meant dualism and I apologize.
  • Yes. Wave-particle duality is the most obvious form of "duality"--in which the observation is so dependent on how the observation is made. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I would agree, I just didn't realized that was what you wanted to express Rmrfstar 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your query

As you've started by e-mail, you may as well continue that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be playing a game. I don't really want to be involved in games. You have my e-mail address if you wish to explain further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

To SV: Thank you for moving the discussion to the User:SlimVirgin/Human page. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)th

Discussion of an NPOV policy that actually works

The discussion is taking place on the User:SlimVirgin/Human page. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is gone. Tom Haws 17:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. You can visit the March 2005 deletion record of that page here. Probably, the discussion should be in a more public arena anyway, such as on the NPOV page and on the No Original Research page. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionists?

I was kinda hoping to discuss with you again at some point, and I'm trying to figure out if I fall inside your definition or not. (It'd be kinda wierd if I did, but I can adapt ;-) ). That and it's bound to be a question that might pop up in conversation with Salva31. :-)

On your user page, you state that "evolutionists are people who believe evolution is a fact."

That appears to be a contradictio? In ordinary english (no epistemic headaches for me today. ;-) ) I'd think that either you believe in foo, or you know foo to be a fact.

So I'm a bit confused. If you have some time, could you unmuddle me please?

Kim Bruning 09:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Rednblu has very neatly captured the notion that evolutionists believe evolution is a fact without knowing it in a certain sense (IOW, they take it on faith rather than because they are convinced by evidence). Belief in God is similar. I think evolutionists believe in evolution in the same way I believe in Beijing.Grace Note 10:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe in Beijing. And personally, I think you should be persecuted if you do. For the good of all China. KDS4444^Talk 09:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin?

While typing here, I suddenly remember something!

Ages ago (like last year even) I'd checked to see if you met admin criteria, and you did. (I'd checked Hawstom, Feloniousmonk and yourself at the time)

Unfortunately I got sidetracked&distracted by events in between.

So anyway, now that I've remembered again, would you like me to nominate you?

apologies for waiting so long

Kim Bruning 09:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, some folks have expressed concerns about my wanting to nominate you. It's a bit strange though, since I haven't actually seen any policy breeches from you. No worries, that's why I always talk with people before nominating, so there's no nasty surprises on RfA. Could you perhaps contact me and give your side of the story? Any form of communication is fine, but you might prefer per wikipedia e-mail for diplomatic reasons. See also: User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Please_help_me_out_here. Kim Bruning 11:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that should you ever step out of line as an admin, we could always just blackmail you. ;-) An excellent motivation to do a good job I'd think. Let me ponder on this. Kim Bruning 10:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

science is ok for nice toys like computers and such, but science and the world reconcile as this in my mind, science is just this little kid racing to catch up, to understand, and may have missed something critical in its hurry.

also, as for creationism and evolution, why's it matter? really... gods can create things and then change them right? why not try to find a way to reconcile both beliefs? [ Comment by Gabrielsimon ]

````

the qustion seems to still lack an answer..... Gabrielsimon 20:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done with edit war

Forget it, you win. Like I said- Im no expert.

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the minor vandalism on my User page. I've no idea what he thought he was doing, or why... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

an opinion please

id like to know if you think any of my postings around seem like vandalism to you. (im a little concerned about such things) Gabrielsimon 01:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

here is a complete list, if the link works. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Gabrielsimon

Gabrielsimon 01:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia style for titles

Like many editors, I've corrected various titles to conform to proper English (and Wikipedia) style — mainly misuse of capitals for articles and prepositions. Very occasionally someone takes offence, and insists on changing it back; the example you give is the only one that I can remember recently. The anon in question has offered no grounds, not even an edit summary, for the change. I wonder what makes you think that the incorrect English is the correct title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. But which style manual are you referring to? Which one says that titles should (or may) have capitalised prepositions or articles? I've never seen one, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong. Moreover, it's Wikipedia style, which is more important in this context.
2. If the anon had made any attempt to explain the reverts, or used a static IP address, then I'd have engaged in conversation of the subject.
3. Note that this article is in case only existing by the skin of its teeth. It has already been made into a redirect on the basis that it lacked sufficient (actual or potential) content to stand alone, and the anon recreated it under a new name.
4. I'm perplexed; has the anon approached you? Not on your User page, but presumably by e-mail. Why didn't he or she explain on the Talk page of the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking of actual style manuals, rather than individual lecturers' advice to students, which most of those Googled pages are (and the first one spells 'attendance' with one 't', which doesn't inspire confidence). Why did you add "blue book" to the search terms, incidentally? In any case, though, none of them allows the capitalisation of 'with'.

I'd be more than reluctant to use Amazon as an authority (they got all sorts of things wrong with my own first book, including my name (they stuck a "Ph.D." in the middle of it...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(copied from my Talk page Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Chipping in: no, we should not say that, Rednblu. Wikipedia has its own house style, detailed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The Wikipedia capitalisation of book titles, album titles, and song titles is the same as that of most academic style guides. However, the Manual of Style is much more elastic than the standard academic styles, and it absolutely is sympathetic to anons; one of the first things it says is: Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. I can't seem to find the sections about book, album, and song titles this late at night (in my time zone), but, generally speaking, Amazon.com conventions are no substitute for the wiki house style, and the wiki book, album, and song capitalisation rules really should be followed as far as possible (most appropriately followed by silently correcting them, the way Mel did). One reason for this is that the titles of many, many wiki articles are book titles or song titles. Article titles, once in place, aren't as simple to change as other text around the site. The "Go" and "Search" commands are case sensitive, so [mis]titling an article, say, The Country wife or The country wife instead of the correct (house style correct, not "English" correct!) The Country Wife will cause real trouble, even though of course using plenty of redirects will be useful there. Hope this helps.--Bishonen | talk 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rednblu!

For voting and commenting in support of my RfA! I appreciate it very much! Yours, El_C 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hello. In the past, I think you've spoken in favor of having guidelines on the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, a few users have been taking out all guidance on that, replacing it with a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:13, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Hello...

<<Until you came along, "With" had been capital for quite a long time. Leave it be, because I won't be giving up. DrippingInk 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)>>

<<You are right, Sir DrippingInk.  :)) You are right. You have encountered unreasonable authority. And you are right, and unreasonable authority is wrong. Nevertheless, how about you and I just let unreasonable authority--together with unreasonable authority's bad grammar, bad spelling, bad vision, bad logic, and blindness to written rules and protocol--just have their day for a few days?  :)) I suggest you and I should just let it be for a few days, what do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 15:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)>>

So were you perhaps agreeing or disagreeing with me? I'm actually uncertain of which.

You appear to be quite the perky person. I am doing fine. Is there anyway that I can stop Mel Etitis from changing the articles? DrippingInk 00:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not from Chicago but from Toronto. I don't like arguments. Hee. But I just want to stop Mel Etitis. He is really ticking me off. DrippingInk 22:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any argument that would be best suitable... ugh. I really don't think there is one. Just out of curious, how do you upload an image without it being stripped from a page by Mel Etitis? I had copyright and everything up... I don't get him. Is he out to get me?

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#FeloniousMonk. --goethean ॐ 18:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for undeletion [1]

I have been asked to provide the details of our conversation of March 2005. Accordingly, please undelete what is under this Deletion link to some non-controversial place, such as to the as yet unconstructed page User_talk:Rednblu/Human. Thank you. Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's a user subpage of mine, which I deleted because there was no need for it. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

There is need to have the discussion on that page available because the discussion on that page is integral to the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page as you can see at this link. The discussion on that page was moved from Talk:Human/Rednblu, is that not so? Rednblu | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean by "the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page." The link you gave me was back in March. This is just a user subpage of mine that wasn't needed. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I wouldn't expect you to remember our discussions. Many people have written to me asserting that what is on that page is needed to assess the User:Rednblu account. That whole deleted page was moved from the Talk:Human discussion, is that not so? Perhaps if you could restore that page just temporarily to some page under my account we could both look at it and perhaps then delete it again. What could be the harm in that? Rednblu | Talk 04:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't keep going back and forth about this. The page isn't needed for anything, and how could anyone know that it's "needed to assess" the account (whatever that means) given that it's deleted? Whatever's going on, I'd prefer not to be involved. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Do you have time to restore that deleted page to some page under my account? Sorry to trouble you. I am not sure what you meant when you wrote "there is a problem regarding the Rednblu user account." But we don't have to ever figure that one out.  :) Let's move forward. You created the page Talk:Human/Rednblu where we had that March 2005 discussion, then you moved that discussion to User_talk:SlimVirgin/Rednblu, and then the page disappeared. Isn't that exactly what happened? Many people write to me saying that they have to see our discussion that was on that deleted page. My only interest is to have our discussion available for them since they ask for it. If what they tell me is right, and that is how I remember it also, this deleted page is not just your thoughts and cogitations. Many other people were part of those discussions also; so the discussions are a proper part of Wikipedia proceedings. Maybe you don't want that page restored under your account? Fine. Then please restore that page under my account, thank you. Sorry to trouble you, but we need that discussion undeleted. And I cannot do it myself. So I would appreciate your help here. Thanks. Rednblu | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

That's a user subpage of mine, which I deleted because there was no need for it. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean by "the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page." The link you gave me was back in March. This is just a user subpage of mine that wasn't needed. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't keep going back and forth about this. The page isn't needed for anything, and how could anyone know that it's "needed to assess" the account (whatever that means) given that it's deleted? Whatever's going on, I'd prefer not to be involved. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Rating Experiment

Hi! What do you think of this? Tom Haws 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You are a great sport and a great friend. I especially appreciate your support since the template immediately went to Templates for deletion.  :-D Tom Haws 03:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The beliefs behind the Rednblu account

Rednblu, if it would help at all, you may feel perfectly free at any time to direct to me any user who persists with doubts about whether your user page is a good-faith representation of your beliefs. Since I have perhaps more evidence than you would feel comfortable my sharing indiscriminately, you may want to let me know by e-mail just how much you would want me to share. If nothing else, I can always stake my personal reputation on the fact. Tom Haws 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to jot down at User:Rednblu/Good faith a few items of which I am aware that may help. Tom Haws 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your pleasing and motivating comments on my userpage :) Joshuarooney 12:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Plato's Stranger Quote:

In answer to your query, sir, I hope that you won't mind if I don't quote James or Spinoza who are well-known but who didn't do particularly valuable research vis a vis Plato, rather to get to the pertinent remarks, one need only open up FDE Schleiermacher's Introduction to the dialogue Sophist (where, of course, the Stranger first puts in his apperance according to FDE) - and, since I only have this beautiful prose in deutsch I hope you don't mind: Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü

[from pp.92/94 of the Akademie Verlag (accurate!) edition - Volume II-2.]:

"Denn im Lauf der Untersuchung über das Nichtseiende entsteht,gerade wie sie selbst als ein höheres in der über den Sophisten entstanden war, die Frage uber die Gemeinschaft der Begriffe, von welcher alles wirkliche Denken und alles Leben der Wissenschaft abhängt; und es eröffnet sich auf das bestimmteste die Anschauung von dem Leben des Seienden und von dem notwendigen Eins- und Ineinandersein des Seins und des Erkennens. Gröβeres aber gibt es nirgends auf dem Gebiete der Philosophie, ... und zugleich darauf, daβ Erkenntnis weder ohne Ruhe noch ohne Bewegung, weder ohne Stehendes noch ohne Flieβendes, weder ohne Beharren noch ohne Werden bestehen könne... indem ja diese das letzte ist, worin die Indirekte Darstellung, auf deren höchster Höhe wir uns hier befinden, endigen muβ.....Daβ hier in der Tat das Wesen aller Philosophie ausgesprochen ist, bedarf für den, dessen überhaut empfänglich ist, keiner weiteren Erörterung.....deshalb kann man mit Recht den "Sophisten" als den innersten Kern aller indirekten Darstellungen des Platon ansehn, und gewissermaβen als das erste in seiner Art völlstandige Bild des Mannes selbst."

and then, a little while later (as I'm sure you're eagerly awaiting the Stranger...)

"Es ist auf jeden Fall bedeutend, dass diese Wiederlegung des Parmenides einem Eleaten in den Mund gelegt wird; .... die Äuβerungen des Fremdlings..."

I hope that (although somewhat abbreviated) the above quote will enable you to understand that this may INDEED be a very important piece of Plato scholarship... need I quote Allen Bloom who states that Schleiermacher appears to have the "best grasp" of the character and the meaning of Plato's dialogues. (Intro to Bloom's transl of the Republic, p. xxiii.)

Of course, I am new at the wiki stuff and will not pretend to know all of your ways ... If there are people who are interested in something other than 'Socrates', something a bit more mature in Plato's works ... I would be happy to introduce these important concepts to you - and being a stranger myself, it seems rather appropriate. Phillip 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Naturally, a lot more can be found in FDE's introductions to Statesman and Symposium...

Today I've posted some comments to Mel, here I'm copying them to you > Dear Mel (please cc: Red&BLue..) This morning I've done a little friendly editing on the Plato page (somebody seems to have messed up the late dialogues as they were commented out... I commented them back in). A few other minor changes on this page... Then I put more on Schleiermacher's basic contentions in the Stub on the Socratic Problem > this seems to be a good place to stick it. I will not hide the fact that, naturally I do have a translation of Schleiermacher into English (9 dialogues) and see myself as "his defender." He's been terribly misused, the Rowolts edition of his works changes HIS ordering that he considered absolutely CRITICAL to a right understanding of Plato >> so, even though when you buy Plato in Germany and it says that it's by FDE, actually it ends up being totally misordered which is something that he would have a hissy fit about if he were still around > they also dare to go in and change "a few words" around, to better suit the "tastes" of the time... I go into this for you so that you may believe that I TOO very strongly HATE it when unqualified people mess up other people's hard work by their incompetence. My question for you is whether IF I did go to the trouble of, say, adding a new page to go into all of the ins and outs of FDE's stance, whether this Page would have any hope for not being deleted or re-edited by fools who "the community" accepts as knowing where-of they speak.... this is - I guess - a difficult question and I'm not even sure if you are the person to whom it should be addressed. As I have said more than once, I am new at this wikipedia way. I have been using the HUMAN page as a sort of sandbox to see how minority views are treated... you may wish to have a look at the discussion there - everything is One, as far as Plato, Schl. and I am concerned...

thanks, Phillip 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC Perhaps it is time to decide 'whose' talk page we want to use to discuss all of this, mine may make the most sense... I'm still simply exploring whether wiki finds my "knowledge" acceptable to it's "editing rules" ... and the like... thanks. Phillip 12:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC) here is my Input to Mel: I'm afraid that all this simply confirms that you have an agenda that militates against the Wikipedia aims of NPoV, as well as indicating your dismissive view of those who disagree with you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) My agenda is defending Schleiermacher, I do not dispute this; whether Wikipedia desires that such old-fashioned views are worth including - this is up to you, Red&Blue and whoever else you may see fit to include... Everything that I have input in the Plato and Socratic problem pages can be backed up with citations from Schleiermacher's Introductions to his translation of Plato. I'd be happy to give you the titles, dates & Publisher if you'd like the same. I have been straight forward and as careful as I could be in trying to state Schl's viewpoint in a neutral manner - I do not have any desire to spend much more time improving wiki without some support on the desirability of my input; it is easy to accuse others of POV - truly understanding the highest level of scholarship takes years of dedication and research; I have become used to being dismissed and will continue to shrug it off: the ball is in your court, I realize that my additions to the "Socratic problem" page don't precisely fit in there - but I needed a sort of sand box to place what I see (from working through FDE's transl. of Plato) as most fundamental, and this seemed an OK spot, not too much traffic and -being a stub- it requested input; plus there isn't a Socratic problem, there seems to be a Stranger problem - so, that wraps it up; I'll check back here in a few days - or you can feel free to contact me at philliplundberg@earthlink.net if you and yours see any sense in having my input. I thank you for your efforts in considering my strange case, yours, pl. Phillip 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

the ball is in your court; thanks, Phillip 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Biasutti's map

Thanks for fixing my incomplete deletion at Human skin color -- but I read your edit note. If you feel the map should remain, then please respond to my comments on the talk page. Peace. deeceevoice 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! I appreciate the important clarification. Still, IMO, there is a serious issue about equating the skin color of the Khoisan with Arabs and Maghreb Berbers. It's simply not anywhere near accurate.

Good morrow, sir

OK, that was clever and funny. ;) In case you're interested, Archimedes quote contains a pun -- Κινω had a double meaning in Archimedes time. Air might be a plus either way, and I'm not sure where you'd put the fulcrum (although in the second meaning a fulcrum is not necessary). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Darjeeling

The Economy section of Darjeeling has been organised as per your comments. Please see if it sounds ok now. You can also leave comment on the FAC of the article. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

!!!

Ca va bien? Grace Note 05:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The "fact" of evolution

What's wrong with characterising a well-supported observation as a "fact"? If someone said "it's a fact that Mars is the next planet out from the sun" or "it's a fact that Proxima Centauri is the nearest star" or "it's a fact that New York State covers 54,520 sq mi" would you consider them "aflicted with the disease of Religion"?

Evolution is an observation. Granted, in most cases it's an observation which we cannot make with the naked eye - it's an observation which depends on instrumentation, and the instrumentation needed to make the observation has a certain (known) amount of error involved in it. You can't take a ruler and measure the area of New York state. You can use an number of other tools, the reliability of which depends on a lot of other things being reliable (be it a survey's level or a satellite's sensors). If different tools gave significantly different area estimates, and they were all, as far as you could tell, accurate, you would have a hard time calling the area of NY State a "fact". On the other hand, if they all gave about the same area (within some margin of error - after all, the area of the state changes between high tide and low tide, one would assume), most people would feel comfortable calling it a "fact".

Another nice example is transpiration. The fact that water moves from the soil, through the plant, to the air, is a simple observation. Sure, making the observation depends on scientific theories about things like heat transfer and radiation detection. How transpiration works isn't settled science - almost everyone accepts cohesion-tension theory, but there are notable dissentors.

That's where it stands with evolution. If all you had was fossil data, then calling evolution a fact might be a bit of a stretch. But there are huge amounts of corroborating observations. Enough that one can sanely call the accumulation of evidence "a fact". Now, this isn't to say that the evolutionary history of any single lineage is well enough known to be called a fact, but the collective evidence is overwhelming. How evolution happened/happens is another issue altogether. That's science, that's a theory. But that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is an observation. Guettarda 17:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Your worthy comments [2]

Greetings, my friend! I have appreciated and relished your thoughts and careful analyses.

But that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is an observation.

I would agree with you. But I also think I understand why I agree with you. I agree with you because my act of what you call "observation" is inescapably shaped by the mechanics of my cognition.

Separate from my cognition, I would say, is "fact"--which the standard English dictionary defines as "Information presented as objectively real." And what is "objectively real" depends critically on the experience level of the audience. I can present something which for me and for other informed people is "objectively real"--but if my audience does not have the experience within which what I say is "objectively real" for them, then I have failed to score a "fact" with that particular audience.

And what I observe from my experience is that, yes, Stephen Jay Gould presents evolution as "fact"--that is, he presents evolution as "information that he presents as objectively real." But Stephen Jay Gould's presentation does not score as "objectively real" with the creationists because the creationists do not have the cognitive apparatus and experience within which the presentation could ever in a million years--without enormous evolutionary advancements of the creationists' cognitive apparatus--score with them as "objectively real."

From a very secular viewpoint in which there is no God, never has been a God, never will be a God, Stephen Jay Gould is in the same secular situation as the Christian missionaries when they confronted the heathen on whatever shores they fulfilled their mission. One religion presents as "fact" what the audience cannot ever accept as "fact" unless they convert and believe by faith what they cannot--with their limited experience and cognitive ability--ever see as "objective reality." --Rednblu 22:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

National Security Councils, worldwide

Hi. No disagreement to your changes at the National Security Council article. Also, I tried to respond to your clarification request in the talk page there. Please take a look at the National Security Council - Turkey page where my two recent attempts to make fair and informative changes were reverted (tried again today). I believe most of the content matter there are journalistic commentary rather than encyclopedic information on the institution. I need the administration's help there.

I responded on the Talk: National Security Council page. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Rednblu 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing each other again...

Not at wikipedia.... Maybe at a new initiative.... If I get unemployed, I will work on that. It will not be to difficult to make something better.... -- Kim van der Linde <sup>at venus</sup> 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Hi there,

Just wanted to say thanks so much for heliping out on the Bongo (antelope) article I'm working on. I'm new to this so please help out as much as you can!

Thanks so much again,

Black Stripe 20:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

erm?

The pathology link on your user page seems to point to the wrong destination. Debivort 17:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

2 states: one people (Case of Romania and Moldova)

Dialects and regional varieties

Main article: Varieties of Romanian language

The term "Romanian" in a general sense envelops four hardly mutually intelligible speech varieties commonly regarded as independent languages. For more on these, please see the article "Eastern Romance languages".

It is thought that the Romanian language appeared north and south of the Danube. All the four dialects are offsprings of the Romance language spoken both in the North and South Danube, before the settlement of the Slavonian tribes south of the river - Daco-Romanian in the North, and the other three dialects in the south.

However, this article deals primarily with Daco-Romanian, and thus the regional variations of that will be discussed here instead. The differences between these varieties are usually very small, usually consisting in a few dozen regional words and some phonetic changes.

Romanian varieties (graiuri)
Blue: Southern varieties
Red: Northern varieties

Like all other languages, Romanian can be regarded as a dialect continuum. However, such a formulation tends to obscure the high homogeneity and uniformity of the language. The Romanian language cannot be neatly divided into separate dialects and Romanians themselves speak of the differences as accents or "speeches" (in Romanian: "accent" or "grai"). This correctly conveys the linguistics notion of accent, as language variants that only feature slight pronunciation differences (Romanian accents are fully mutually intelligible). Several accents are usually distinguished:

• Muntenian accent (Graiul muntenesc), spoken mainly in Wallachia and southern parts of Dobruja.
• Moldavian accent (Graiul moldovenesc), spoken mainly in Moldavia, northern parts of Dobruja and the Republic of Moldova. Written <p> is realised as /k/; written <c> before front vowels is realised as /ʃ/. Written <ă>, in final position, is palatalized.
• Maramureşian accent (Graiul maramureşean), spoken mainly in Maramureş.
• Transylvanian accent (Graiul ardealean), spoken mainly in Ardeal.
• Banatian accent (Graiul bănăţean), spoken mainly in Banat. Written <t> before front vowels is realised as /ʧ/.
• Oltenian accent (Graiul oltenesc), spoken mainly in Oltenia and by the Romanian minority in Timok region of Serbia. Notable feature of this dialect is the usage of the Simple perfect tense rather than the Complex perfect which is used in other dialects.

Over the last century, however, regional accents have been weakened due to mass communications and greater mobility.

---

The above brought to us by 211.115.69.109. Thank you. --Rednblu 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, can you delete the contributions of William Mauco? He is a russian sovietic paid by Moscow. See talk page of Transnistria.--211.115.69.104 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have two friends who live in Chişinău and they tell me a third and even different story. By NPOV, we should present all significant published views. Who has written what you tell in English? Can you give me citations to books? --Rednblu 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang in the NPOV fight

I just wanted to say hang in there on the NPOV fight. My experience has been some of the editors/admins around here can be complete bullies. I think we want the same thing: to make Wikipedia better for its readers.--Pravknight 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've started discussion at WP:CON on an anti-groupthink amendment to the Consensus rule. If we can get that passed, then we can work towards eliminating the stranglehold of the editing cabals. Read this link.[3] --Pravknight 05:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I need your help on the WP:V talk page because FM has shown up trying to prosecute me for proposing a ban on assertion-based polemics in Wikipedia articles.--Pravknight 22:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Red, I'm taking the weekend off. Cover for me bud.--Pravknight 23:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Great comments on the RfArb from Fresh

I got insight from your comments and appreciated them. I think that the vague notions of what constitutes "consensus" is a problem. I believe the system gets "gamed" by longer-term users who run amok over newer people like fresh. I cannot tell it for sure. It just seems that way to me now, after having been here a short while and comparing what I see here to what I have see in other venues. --Blue Tie 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Red

I would urge you to go back into the archives of what I wrote on the Paul Weyrich article back in August when I tried excising FM's POV language to make it more neutral in tone, and see what you think. FM conveniently listed all of them on his RfC about my effort to neutralize the anti-Weyrich tone.

I appreciate whatever help you can give to neutralize the POV slant in the article. I am staying out of this one, except maybe to give you an attaboy--Pravknight 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Choose a different edit

You think you could choose a different edit to make your point at the RfArb? Tommysun's edit was removed because it was about redshift quantization not intrinsic redshifts and has no real bearing on the article. You are claiming I am "surpressing" Tommysun's contribution when in reality I'm just pointing out that the quoted papers are about a different subject. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you did not understand what I was saying above, I have posted my dispute with your choice of difference edits. You're, unfortunately, under the impression that the only reason I remove things from articles is because I don't like the POV. In fact, I removed these references because they are about redshift quantization and not intrinsic redshifts. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now responded to your response. I find your dishonesty with regards to this issue ridiculous approaching offensive. You didn't even bother to do the most basic of research (for example, reading the papers in question) to support your WikiLawyering, and instead make-up what the papers are discussing. If you don't want to research issues, fine, but don't pretend that you are some kind of perfect arbiter of neutrality when you haven't even read the papers you are discussing. --ScienceApologist

---

Issue manifestation.

Issue manifestation.

Issue manifestation.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Happy to discuss further but I do not understand your proposal - perhaps I am seeing the wrong box.--Golden Wattle <sup>talk</sup> 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Rednblu!

Hi! Nice picture on talk page. You might be interested to see what another user is saying about you in this diff at User talk:Seraphimblade#Jossi. I take it with a large grain of salt since the user is on the opposite side of a content dispute with you. --Coppertwig 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle

... but I was already going to post a reply to you that no one user should be given too much deference. We're all equals here. I'll probably set up a user page in a few hours. --Coppertwig 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for injecting some lightheartedness into all this! I think you just gave me my first really hearty laugh of the day: "I understand. I will behave. :) This is serious business. I would not want to detract from that." --Coppertwig 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I think I've finished editing the page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy. If someone wants to move or copy it, that's OK. I'm going to tell SMcCandlish the same thing. Note that if it's moved or copied, probably the whole thing including talk page and page history should be moved or copied along with it. Thanks for your note re elegance. --Coppertwig 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution poll

A proposal: For the record

The proposal was presented in this edit. I copied that page to my UserSpace at User:Rednblu/Attribution/Poll and merely fixed a link so that I could look at the complete proposal. --Rednblu 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fanning the flames

Fanning the flames of editors under an arbcom ruling and with clear personal axes to grind to act as your proxy against someone you see as a common enemy is not helpful to Wikipedia or a good use of the community's resources.

You'd be wise to keep in mind the proviso at RFC that says "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste." Regardless of their merits RFCs that are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community and the RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of your actions and role in the filing. 151.151.73.169 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to ignore this ("151.151.?.?") user's warnings and his harassment. I have yet to understand his angle, but I suspect that he thinks he's doing the Wiki community good by zealously protecting the reputation of his wikifriends FeloniousMonk, who, by the way, was involved in the original dispute against Asmodeus. I presume that a reversal of that decision would be embarrassing for FeloniousMonk, but perhaps it would just be a colossal waste of time and resources on everyone's part. I really don't know.

There may be good reasons to not associate too much with DrL and Asmodeus, banned from editing the Langan article for violating WP:COI and WP:NPA, but fear of community reprisal should not be one of them. That would certainly harm the community. --Otheus 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology. I did not mean to offend anyone with my edit summary in the above post. I did mean it as a response to 151.151's edit summary, which invoked the colorful metaphor, "Fanning the Flames". My retort, "Blowing smoke up my ass",[4] often used to describe a bluff, was intended to be on-par with that, attempting to invoke the idea that the flames are just smoke. However, I see that this was too colorful, and I begrudgingly regret it and apologize to the community for it. --Otheus 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; much obliged. --Rednblu 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Format change

I undid this edit. He entered his "vote" above, then entered that comment as a secondary comment. Your format change results in him being "counted" twice; I changed it back. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your communication, Rednblu. It's good to meet you and I do appreciate yours and Thatcher131's input. Thatcher131 has noted that "As a matter of policy, the only avenues to appeal an arbitration committee decision are the arbitration committee or Jimbo himself." It would seem very odd, and not particularly promising, to appeal such an irrational arbcom decision to the arbcom itself. Asmodeus addressed this dilemma in his response to Jimbo. I wouldn't expect to fare any better in a request for comment but perhaps the process would proceed differently under Jimbo's watchful eye. I appreciate your offer of help. I'll admit that I was on the fence, but after reading some of the comments on your talk page, I am feeling that your suggestion might indeed be worth the effort. "Indefinite" bans seem to be given out far too frequently on Wikipedia, and administrative abuse is a growing problem. --DrL 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The color of your picture on this page

Hi red. This is blue. I like the color of the picture here. Good choice. I have not seen you around lately so, just cluttering up your page with a hello. --Blue Tie 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth, understanding, love and peace, and good night...

Hey, I think we have made great progress in understanding each other. If everyone on wikipedia were as reasonable as we are, consensus wouldn't be that hard :D (I hope nobody sees this very humble comment!) Anyway, I'm going to sleep, it has been very nice discussing this with you, but sleep is also important, so good night! --Merzul 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Over at the ATT poll, I've just flipped the order of the Oppose/Support sections, on the theory that it is heavily biasing the voting. I expect to be reverted within minutes. I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful. My theory is that if the vote is being biased by Support being at the top, it is only fair that they be inverted for the rest of the poll, and if this effect is not happening, the change will have no effect at all, ergo the only reason to revert it is to support bias in favor of Support votes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good summary of the poll comments

Summary here --Rednblu 06:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gem in summarizing the opposition comments. --Rednblu 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and global warming

I'm not going to add more comments on this at the "role of truth" talk page. You have moved solidly OT now.

What I do want to tell you is that when you have a wealth of material available, you have the opportunity, if not the obligation, to go beyond the established Wikipedia policies and seek to use only the highest quality sources and the most verified statements. There is no need to accept a weakly-sourced statement or list a relatively trivial study, whereas a more specific aricle (such as climate change in Antarctica would have reason to use them. Something to think about. --EMS | Talk 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucretius

Hi Rednblu, I see that you take some interest in the article on Lucretius. On Talk:Lucretius I have placed a suggestion for improvement of the article. I invite you to comment or contribute. I am, I must admit, a beginner in Wikipedia-editing and I could use some expert advise on this, but I do know something about Lucretius, and I think he deserves better than this. Best regards, Fabullus 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom

Thanks for noticing. It has been a while. I'm glad to see you are here. Tom Haws 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

You have been on Wikipedia for very long, and have made many edits. Would you like to be nominated for admin? Wooyi<sup>Talk to me?</sup> 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • [5] Thanks for your vote of confidence, my friend. But foreseeably the AntiNPOV bellwethers will come with their flocks. In my opinion, it would not be a good Wikipedia community event. If you could get the endorsements of the honorable users User:ScienceApologist, User:SlimVirgin, User:Jossi, User:Mel Etitis, User:Slrubenstein, and User:FeloniousMonk for your proposal, then I would agree, but otherwise I cannot. In any case, thanks again for your vote of confidence, my friend. --Rednblu 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi Rednblu, could you please have look at the edits made by User:24.84.138.92. I can't call them anything but vandalism, but I don't know how to go about this sort of thing. Thanks! --Fabullus 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac article name change

Thanks for your comments and contributions at Binding of Isaac. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VillepinAndZuma.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:VillepinAndZuma.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly <sup>hi!</sup> 04:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you look back through the history, the link with permission for use was provided from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But that does not seem to matter does it? It is clearly no use to provide a permission link--because whenever the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs reorganizes its site, the link with the permission will disappear, n'est-ce pas? --Rednblu (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

hi

Hello old friend. I was just reminiscing about how much i learned in epistemological boot camp on wikipedia's creationism pages -- almost a decade ago now -- when i stumbled across your section entitled "Is 'Evolution is a Fact' pedagogically effective?" or something to that effect. Fascinating stuff. Grateful to you for your guidance and many insights all those years ago. Hope you're well. Ungtss (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you -- truly spectacular -- and also an excellent microcosm of the development of great achievements by the spontaneous, uncoordinated self interested acts of millions. It also exhibits the inevitable pathologies of human systems -- both destruction for the sake of destruction by those frustrated with their own inability to contribute productively, the rhetorical dominance of insecure ideologues at the raw, as-yet-incomplete margins of human knowledge, where our insecurities are the worst, and the powerful backlash unleashed by these ideologues:). Ungtss (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mitt romney's campaign

I didn't understand the deletion. Your comment "47% comment: Executing the FoxNews directive for July 7 that the links to Scott Prouty should be removed since the FoxNews directive for June 15 to delete Scott Prouty has been successful." was not helpful. Please revert or expalin. Smallbones<sub>(smalltalk)</sub> 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your inquiry. Here is what I know.

• I looked for some reference information I put into Talk:Scott_Prouty, and I found that someone had deleted not only the reference information I put into Talk:Scott_Prouty but also had deleted the whole page Scott Prouty -- even though there was a Keep decision after a whole AfD debate.
• Since I don't have time to watch over the Scott Prouty page to make sure that those who want to delete Scott Prouty don't cheat and get their way anyway, I thought it would be best to remove the self-referencing link that just points back to the text that contains the link.
• I trust your judgment. If you like the self-referencing link that I removed, I will not feel offended in the least if you revert my removal of the self-reference link. I appreciate your diligence and your artistic judgment.
• In the words of Mark Twain, I apologize belatedly for not having time to write to you a concise and short explanation of the situation.

Thank you again. --- Rednblu (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ship's wheel minor semantics

Hey, I saw your removal of the "its" in the sentence, "A ship's wheel is used to change its course." Good move, though I believe the "its" was referring to the antecedent "ship", cf. "A man's thoughts can change his mood" or "a canary's song is its most appealing characteristic." But I will grant you that the use in this way is confusing and best avoided! KDS4444<sup>Talk</sup> 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gravesend, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hythe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rednblu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rednblu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)