Squish7

Intro Thing

Hello, Squish7! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Lost in Wikipedia

I have posted a reply at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#lost in wikipedia; where's the yellow brick road? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cube math

You seem very interested in the math of the Cube.
I hope the clarifications I've been trying to make recently on the talk page help some!
Regards, Wikiscient 00:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cube (film)

You keep adding original research and your own analysis to the article, that is why it keeps getting removed.

“ A perfect summary of the strong polarized egos of both characters which seem to magnify and collide under stress. ”

Check the guidelines at Wikipedia:No original research and reformat your edits into something that doesn't include words like "seem," "suggest," etc. and it should be fine. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to Cube (film), as they are appearing as original research and have the style of a personal opininon/guess. Please remember that Wikipedia articles are set to be in a neutral point of view, not from a user's perspective. 142.162.204.174 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Aspartame controversy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Further, the talk page is not a soapbox for speculation and advocacy. Per WP:Verifiability, opinions without reliable sources are not going to improve the article, and that is the purpose of the talk page.Novangelis (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Aspartame controversy for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

retitling

{{adminhelp}} Where can I find the meaning of these sorting abbreviations at the bottom of the page for "Free running". I want to change the title to "Freerunning" (no space) but I'm not sure about how to change this chunk of code. If you can't tell me direct please refer me to a help page. (Thank you!)

DEFAULTSORT:Free Running Category:Parkour Category:Running Category:Street culture

bg:Фрийрън cs:Free running da:Free-Running el:Freerunning fr:Freerun ko:프리러닝 it:Free Running ms:Larian bebas no:Freerunning pl:Freerun pt:Free running ru:Фриран simple:Free running fi:Free running sv:Free running

Okay, I tagged the article for history merge since there was already a copy 'n paste a few years ago. We have to wait until this will be fixed, otherwise it is even getting harder to fix that problem for the administrator.

About your second question:

• Category:Parkour
• Category:Running
• Category:Street culture

creates categories in which this page is in. e.g. click on Category:Parkour and you see the other articles in this category. The stuff after that create the links called "interwiki"-links at the left side which says that there is e.g. a polish version of this article. The default sort houldn't be touched. It defines how the article gets sorted in the categories.

Oh by the way, I changed the helpme-template now to an adminhelp template since we need an admin to fix the issues. mabdul 14:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this has been  Done. fish&karate 14:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

misc Qs if you'd be so kind, thanx

1. Is it really necessary to have "[clarification needed][citation needed]" when both are relevant? It's extremely visually awkward, and perhaps "clarification" incorporates the need for citations enough to eliminate the visual eyesore..? If someone has written a sloppy paragraph, often both these elements will be in place. I'd never seen the two paired before, and I'm wondering if they ever should be, or if the balance of sacrifice/etc should be a case-to-case basis.

2. Should/may a hyphen be placed wherever it will clarify the relationship between 2 words, even if it is not an officially hyphenated word? I believe this is common practice, but I don't want to go around hyphenating everything if it's not common here.

3. I'm researching a notable public figure who's not heavily documented in strictly/solid "reliable" sources, but meets all the WP requirements in spirit. If I create an article with flimsy (not no) official evidence, but that anyone can see meets requirements if investigated, would this be kosher, assuming I add the appropriate tags ("This article needs references, please add", etc)

4. If I redirect an acronym to (pound)REDIRECT for an acronym that doesn't otherwise exist, should I denote "for other uses click here" on the page it redirects to, or is this just implied. If so, how would I do that?

1. No. Feel free to fix it; if someone objects, talk to 'em. WP:BOLD WP:BRD.
2. Usually, yes. See MOS:HYPHEN
3. There is nothing "in spirit" about WP:V. Refer to WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. If unsure about sources, ask on WP:RSN.
4. No; if it is just a redirect to one specific article, then it should just contain the text #REDIRECT [[Whatever]] - that is all; e.g. [1].

 Chzz  ►  04:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted image basics

1. I'm confused about how to ask permission for an image. Can a copyright holder release rights specifically to Wikipedia? I'm reading the help files but I'm still confused. Could you give me the basic process, adding where I should read for details? Like where do I direct someone when I ask permission?

2. I'm creating a page about a public figure. Images I want to use are heavily intermixed between the product company he's a spokesman for, and his own sites. Which should I seek permission from, if not both? I'm in contact with the person, who'll likely let me use whatever photo(s) I select, but I don't want to take up his time if it's a process to release rights to an image.

3. When uploading images, should I upload only the 2 or 3 I intend to use, or should I upload a handful, to give options for later use (i.e. if other editors disprove of my choices).

Thanks for your time.

3. Upload a bunch, other editors may get use from the leftovers. onyx³²¹ 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. No, it's not enough to release rights just to Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's aims as "the free encyclopedia" is that its content should be free for others to re-use. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.

2. There's no shortcut to this - you, or they, will have to find out who owns the copyright for each image you want to use. It could be the person, the company, or the photographer. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dumb blue ducks?

Is it kosher style to combine reference tags, for instance...

List of quotes on various websites:
1. Quote from Duck.com: "Ducks exist."
2. Quote from Blue.com: "Ducks are blue."
3. Quote from Dumb.com: "Ducks are dumb."

Wikipedia article sentences:
A. "Dumb blue ducks exist.[1][2][3]"
B. "Dumb[3] blue[2] ducks exist[1]."

Is the first allowable, and if so, preferable, given the B version makes the sentence difficult to parse?

Answered:

Also, why can't I get the above lines to appear one per line? When I put them one per line, the carriage returns vanish and they smoosh into a paragraph. When I put empty carriage returns, they appear double-spaced. thanks as always.

I don't understand the first part of the question, please clarify. As for the linebreaks: Since Wikipedia operates on the assumption that everything without a empty linebreak in between should be in one paragraph, you need to either use <br/> tags manually at the end of those lines or indent the entries using ":", "*" or "#". That said, you shouldn't use <br/> in articles because of the way text should be written, i.e. either it should be in the same paragraph without breaks or in a new paragraph (see Wikipedia:Don't use line breaks). Regards SoWhy 21:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe I've clarified the grammar.(?)

Regarding your first question, the sentence itself wouldn't even be permissible. The conclusion that "Dumb blue ducks exist" from three sources that do not explicitly state "Dumb blue ducks exist" would be considered synthesis. Goodvac (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the help page, let me revise. If I have an acceptable passage that references two sources, but with which inserting references mid-sentence would be awkward, can those references be paired later on, together, accepting the small sacrifice of clarity for editors examining the sources, in favor of ease of reading for anyone not investigating the sources?

Revising my above example with the quotes from the sites given:

A) "Some say ducks are blue, while others say ducks are dumb; others simply claim that ducks exist, and do not elaborate.[2][3][1]"

B) "Some say ducks are blue[2], while others say ducks are dumb[3]; others simply claim that ducks exist, and do not elaborate.[1]"

B is easier for an examining editor (or reader investigating the sources), yet is visually ugly. A, while a bit more annoying to investigate, is easier for people to read. Are both technically acceptable, making this trade-off a case-to-case decision, or is one not acceptable? Squish7 (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer B. It's important that readers be able to assess the reliability of the statements in the article. Hopefully in a real case the statements would be longer and the footnote markers further apart. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

red bull deletion discussion

So, there are two possible discussion locations  : the article discussion page, which you just created, and the article deletion discussion page, which was created at the time the article was proposed for deletion. There is a link to that discussion in the "box" that talks about the deletion. That discussion page includes the reason the page was nominated, and whatever additional discussion has taken place. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am replying here, because this is a discussion between us, not something specifically talking about the article, and therefore does not belong on the article talk page.

You yourself have pointed out something : I responded to your question on the talk page, before you asked for help. I had no idea you even used the help template until you pointed out that I should delete it. I put one word in caps, for emphasis. If you can't understand, and/or deal with that, perhaps the internet is the wrong medium for you.

You are making several leaps of assumption. You said that we asked for information, and you then provided it, and then we criticized it. I have no idea what you mean about asked for it, unless you mean the general request for any good information on wikipedia. If you are referring to some more specific request, then it would perhaps be helpful to add that into the discussion, so the others have context.

I am able to infer from some of your message, that information has somewhere been requested about "sports", and "france" - good, very possible. That dose not mean that ANY information about french sports is wanted/needed. Obviously there are many many events which are below the level of interest to an encyclopedia. Also, many companies tend to try and use wikipedia as an advertising platform. Therefore, when an event gets posted, using brand names heavily, including grossly factually inaccurate statements (parkour is an olympic event), and it does not have an references listed - yes, it gets a high level of scrutiny and scepticism.

Wikipedia is full of judgement calls. You think your initial effort was tolerable, and adhered to policy. I think it did not. That difference of opinion is not a problem. That is the entire point of the process the article is going through. To get consensus. The article has since been expanded, and is likely (but not surely) to survive. If you are offended that the process is even happening, then wikipedia is going to cause you a lot of frustration. And yes, attacking others, because that process is going on, is not acceptable, which was the point of my previous response.

I am not denying you your opinion on anything. I merely stated MY opinion, about how the particular policies applied in this case. Again, this is the reason for the processes - so that differences of opinions can be resolved. (And by the way, you have yet to give your opinion where it actually matters in this case, the deletion discussion )

sincerely - welcome to wikipedia. But please do read up on the processes - I was trying to help you to understand what was going on Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain what you meant in your post just added to the delete discussion "need for categories". Is there a specific request for more articles somewhere on these two topics (which in my opinion do not suffer from a lack of articles in general) - or do you just refer to the general concept of "wikipedia has categories for these two subjects, which is a general open-invitiation/request for making articles" ? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's directly expressed in the article "parkour". Click the "more" for the two listed project categories. Both boxes state they are part of projects that "aim to improve the coverage of [sports/France]", France being "high-importance", and sports being "mid-importance". I just can't understand how it could be possible to quantify one's opinion so thoroughly as to 100% claim "I have weighed and subtracted these factors, and such-and-such is my opinion devoid of them." From that springboard, this is a weighty factor for leeway and allowance for the existence of a tentative article.

Consider that if someone says RBAOM is an Olympic event, they may be trying to convey the importance level, and may not even know the technical fact doesn't stand. That's what I have found offensive. Some young traceur who doesn't sit at a computer all day may have taken extra personal time, per WP's calling, to express the general spirit of the information to the best of his effort. If that's the scenario, then I find a deletion tag based on the information that a non-fact was thrown in offensive to that person's work. You may not agree, but perhaps you can now see where my opinion is coming from..? I'm not talking about a check mark box of disproval; I'm talking about people's lives. France, sports, youth, and undocumented phenomenon, all a level of alien to English encyclopedias, necessitate a literally extra extra extra extra effort to improve the quality in these areas, which heavily nominate patience and leeway.

I'm honestly too tired to be hostile, lol, but FYI, I consider the two hours I've just sat here debating this issue, time that I should not have had to spend. If that translates to a criticism of the Wikipedia system, well fine, that's just a logged complaint. If I expressed it improperly, I apologize. Squish7 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So yes, we want more information about sports and france. That does not mean ANY information. There are guidelines to what information is included. I did not claim 100%. I had an opinion about the article, and that caused me to go through a process. This happens to dozens of articles per day. You seem to be taking the position of you are 100% sure that your contribution should not even be questioned. But it contained a ridiculous inaccuracy. That indicates a lot about the level of research done by the author, and/or a lack of awareness of policy. both of which re-enforce my position that the process is justified. Nobody is critiquing french youth. But to say that the encyclopedia shouldnt have standards, because some french youth might be disadvantaged by it is totally non-sequetor. My action has no impact of France, french youth, or parkour (which has several articles about it). It only comments about this one particular event and article, not a judgement of France. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your above comments way above (editing conflict), which basically respond to this paragraph anyway...

Tabling most of your points as absorbed and not worth debating back and forth forever, I'll let out one more response. Just supposing the RBOAM turned into an official Olympic event at the next Olympics, in retrospect, this would have shown that it probably warranted inclusion in Wikipedia previously. The process, then, whatever the mixture of Wikipedia policy and particular editors' implementation of it, would be proven flawed, because the system will have had failed to recognize that notability of the RBOAM. In this case, a claim that RBOAM is "an olympic event" would be at the least, information not so blatantly erroneous as warrant a whole deletion process. Let us say, then, that ten people report spending 40 hours trying to find information for that little stub. The deletion process would then be subject to the opinion of having been offensive. I didn't "attack" anyone in specific. I attacked the general system/process. Perhaps it's impossible to do so without specifically offending an editor reading my complaint, which may just be a lose/lose scenario. Squish7 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Im really confused by this. At some point in the future, parkour could become an olympic event. sure. At 0 point in the future, 100% impossible, would "Red Bull Art of Motion" become an olympic event. Even _if_ by some miracle it did become an olympic event, that would not indicate a flaw in wikipedia policy. At that point int the future, the information could be added. Also, by your logic, you can add anything, to any article, because at some point in the future, it might be true. Thats not a good policy for an encyclopdia. In addition, that one factual inaccuracy was not the cause for the article to be proposed for deleted. It was one piece of the proposed justification - again, the process is likely to keep the article. You are offended that someone is even questioning the article. Wikipedia is going to be a sad place for you... Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we've exhausted ourselves. I appreciate all your points, they're absorbed. Nutshell: I think the collective Wikipedia system should be able to recognize this as worthy of inclusion. I just can't quantify the derivation of this feeling further without a doctorate-thorough thesis. Perhaps we could converse more concisely in the future. Squish7 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I dont want to keep this going, because you are right, we have exhausted it. But the collective is likely to say it should be included - that was the point of the process. To gather consensus. Your initial comments said you were offended that it was even proposed. Sincerely - good luck in your future efforts on wikipedia. I believe you were acting fully in WP:GOODFAITH and I believe I was as well, and I hope we can work together in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

tentative use of obviously reliable sources

If something is extremely likely to be true/credible at anybody's 5-second glance, of which the proper reference information is obtainable, can a generally off-the-list source be used tentatively until the information can be completely verified? For instance, if U2 uploads a clip from CNN news to their personal website, can the URL be used on a WP article about U2 until the precise reference information for that news feed is obtained? If so, how should it be labeled? "Citation needed"? Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In general you can get away with that, unless someone objects to the particular information. The less controversial the information is, the less reliable sources are generally allowed. Especially if it links to a CNN video with CNN branding, unless someone thinks it was a hoax video, I don't think anyone would care. If you have a specific source you want consensus on ahead of time, either ask in the article talk page, or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Gaijin42 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

logo issues

Would a picture such as the following (i.e. including a clear "Red Bull" logo) be acceptable, if Red Bull is a heavy component of the article? I.e. the subject is heavily involved with Red Bull culture and athletic events, and is almost wearing such a shirt in public, hence the image reflects that aspect of his career in a microcosm. Squish7 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.wfpf.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/Prestige/thumb.php?src=http://wfpf.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Ryan_Doyle.jpg&w=610&h=400&zc=1

The bigger problem is likely to be copyright of the photo, but I don't think there is a policy against showing sports people in branded clothing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar

I just want to commend you for writing and editing the Ryan Doyle article. I think this article and your work is an asset to the encyclopedia. I wasn't familiar to the sport before finding your help request on your talk page. The subject of freerunning is definitely interesting! It all sounds like something I do in my dreams. (It's always either running or flying!) If you ever need help or have questions navigating Wikipedia or the wild world of policies and guidelines, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Taking stigmas against sourcing YouTube/etc with a grain of salt

Hello Squish, I'm surprised you took an interest in my conversation with Cindy. Scrolling down her talk page, I did see a very long discussion between you and her, but I did not pursue it because I usually do not feel like reading long discussions over articles I'm not involved in. Regarding what you said about my beliefs on Wikipedia's policies, I told Cindy that I did not know nor did I care about their guidelines, but truth be told, I couldn't care any less about their laws. I don't have the patience or interest in being a hardcore Wikipedia editor unless somebody paid me to do it. I'm always surprised that the hardcore editors can cite the guidelines like passages from the Bible though. I used to have aspirations of becoming an admin, but then I realized how much asskissing I'd have to do to earn the privilege.

The guidelines that editors always scream at me from their edit summaries I usually disregard. Haha, there was that one time I got irritated enough on the B-boying article to call the guy a lazy ass. [2] First time I've ever called someone a lazy ass on Wikipedia.

With you though, I see from the Ryan Doyle article that you've had a much tougher fight than me regarding the system. The articles I watch aren't high on Wikipedia's draconian reform list, so I never have to worry about them coming down on the article. Probably the reason you've had a much tougher fight though is because you created and maintain the Ryan Doyle article all by yourself, and also have had to fight for it (and probably its deletion) all by yourself.

About parkour and freerunning though, I do a bit of it too. I know about the most famous names and teams in parkour, watched MTV's butchering of it in Ultimate Parkour Challenge (glad my idol Travis Wong was hosting it though), and know a few movies where it was showcased (Surprisingly, there was a scene in the Chinese film Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen where the main character konged over some rubble). Shreveport has a small parkour and freerunning team called Altered Movements and although mostly everyone sucks, the founder of the group who came from Lafayette is pretty good for Louisiana.

So yeah, in essence, since I haven't had to put up with the stress of every hardcore editor coming down on my ass for not citing a single thing, I haven't had the need to think about 'working within the system' and overthrowing the Wikipedian government. Myominane (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I've always been the type to dislike laws. I don't respect the guidelines, I just like to think I have enough common sense to edit an article formally and semi-professionally. Just because I don't respect them doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to break them. Which leads to my closing rebuttal: I'm here because I believe knowledge is meant to be spread among everyone. And I make it a personal goal to try and inform people, through Wikipedia, so they can go through life less ignorant. These guidelines make that hard for me to do so occasionally, even with my good intentions. I'm here of my free will, just wanting to spread knowledge on what I know and what I want people to know. I follow the basic rules though, albeit it's more that I have enough common sense not to break them. Myominane (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle With the Banana-Yellow Box

I have added a late reply to Wikipedia talk:New contributors' help page#My Battle With the Banana-Yellow Box but maybe it's no longer relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

quick Q - thanks

{{helpme}} What help file can I find help for using the linking brackets in the code? I'd like to know how to link to the following: 1. A discussion page 2. An old revision 3. An external website

THANKS

I've moved your question here, being a general question and the correct place for it.

Check out WP:LINK

For No.2 - view the history, click on the date of the old version - in the browser address bar you will get the link you want - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryan_Doyle&oldid=466755994 - then treat as an external link  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

quick Q

May an important discussion section/issue be moved to the top of a discussion page for easy reference, or should a page always list discussions in chronilogical order?  Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Would WP:TOPPOST answer your question (that is, no)? However i have just made {{To section}}. You can use it in line with IAR, but don't be surprised if someone removes it :-) Cheers, benzband (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added it at the top of this page so you can see it in action. benzband (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at user talk:benzband's talk page.

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ryan Doyle. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Please review the applicable policy pertaining to primary sources. You may also opt to inquire at the reliable sources noticeboard for further guidance. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ryan Doyle, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Ryan Doyle. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 Hello, i have raised some of these issues at Talk:Ryan Doyle#Maintenance. benzband (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re

Hi, thanks for your comment I shall be keeping up to date on the dispute resolution and monitoring Ryan Doyle through my watchlist. If i can be of any assistance, just drop a line on my talk page :-) And BTW, what was the red ball stuff about? benzband (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't put him back as it would encourage userboxitis. Oh, and you can make it talk yourself at it's own talk page. benzband (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEDE

Hey there Squish7, good work on SOPA, something you might like to improve your already good editing is to keep in mind that references don't need to go into the lead section at all, they can be better covered in depth in the body of the article. So just check for the reference by, for example, Cntrl-F, then type criminalize or penalty, and then find where it says it in the body. It keeps the lead nice and easy to read. Some other editors use the lead as a miniature article and argue over it and are too lazy to read the article, so it helps slow down those people too. You can just tell em it's referenced in the body, refer them to wp:lede and next thing they are reading the actual article and you won't have near as much trouble from them. Penyulap _talk 01:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper citing

What are the minimum fields for reference using "{ { cite =" for a reference to be considered kosher when using a web URL? I.e. for there to be no error and for a bot not to frown on it? Just |url and |title? Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's best if you fill in as much information as you can. Here is a basic version:

{{cite web |author= |title=|date= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}

There are automated tools to help with citations. For example, there is an extension available for Firefox called cite4wiki that will generate a properly formatted citation for you when you right-click on a web page. See Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki for more information. Reflinks (the interactive version) will place unformatted web citations into templates for you when you run it on an article. Good luck! Regards, --Dianna (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Squish7. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Squish7. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Best way to share drafts on talk page

I've tried to paste html that I would put it an article, into the talk page instead, but it doesn't allow it (e.g. the references won't work). What's the best way to share draft work and ask for comments without officially posting the work? The only thing I can think of is to edit the actual article with the drafting then to revert it immediately, then share a link to that momentary version on the talk page. Is there a better way? Thanks! Squish7 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You may have to add a {{reflist}} template to the talk page to have your draft's references displayed, but other than that, talk pages should work for your purposes. If it's a longer or more complex draft, you may want to put it in a separate sub-page, perhaps your sandbox, and link to that. I've also seen sub-pages of the article itself used for such a purpose, but only when major parts of large articles were rewritten - for a paragraph or two that would be overkill. Huon (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting early objective intervention

What's the best method of requesting objective review of material? I and others think the flu shot page is riddled with bias, but I fear the bias is of people who would revert my edits. I can't post a dispute beforehand, but if I'm pretty sure now that it will cause a dispute, can I invite intervention politely of draft material? I have a short fuse for back-and-forth bickering wars.

Please see the relevant talk page section. At the end is my draft paragraph for a new article section "Cons and controversies" that will be merely a base for a thorough section or even new article entirely. I'd like the sources and intended article reviewed by an objective party, but I fear the talk page is monitored primarily by biased parties. THANKS for your help! Squish7 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for wider community input, you could put a (neutrally worded) note at relevant WikiProjects' talk pages, here probably WT:WikiProject Medicine and WT:WikiProject Viruses. That said, I would expect that your problem is not so much the bias of editors but the problems inherent in your proposed addition. For example, Infowars.com has been deemed not reliable before in other contexts, and none of your sources is the equal of the peer-reviewed scientific papers used for much of the rest of the article. If you want to cover the social controversy, you should use sources reporting on controversy, not participating in it. If you want to add information on the scientific basis - say, the effectiveness - you should use scholarly sources, not news reports and random persons' private websites.

As a completely unrelated aside, I'd suggest putting your draft in a new section at the bottom of the talk page. In a section that was inactive for months it might be overlooked. Huon (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

linking to sub-sections

How do I properly link to a sub-section of a page? I've been clicking the subsection link in the Contents of a page, then copying the html link in my browser, and this sometimes works, but doesn't always seem to go to the section. Is there a better way? Thanks for your help! Squish7 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You can link to sections with the # sign: For example, User talk:Squish7#linking to sub-sections will link to this section. Linking to sections may not yield the desired results if the target page has collapsed text - I believe the problem is that the when the page is loaded, it first jumps to the correct place and then collapses the text, thereby shifting the target section upwards. I don't think there's an easy workaround for that problem. Try WP:AFC/R#Redirect request: pNp for an example of that effect. Huon (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

test test2

Caution regarding attacks on other editors

This a formal reminder that personal attacks on other editors are never acceptable conduct on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia editors are supposed to engage with each other in a civil manner at all times.

Suggesting that your fellow Wikipedia editors are engaged in "perjury", conduct "isomorphic to perjury" is never appropriate. Repeatedly suggesting, without evidence or reason to support your assertion, that other editors might have a secret conflict of interest – e.g., "has a personal financial agenda to manipulate the article/talk page" – is a serious and entirely unwarranted attack on their personal integrity.

Referring to other editors' disagreement with your positions or approach as an "atrocity" may be a strong signal that you need to step back, disengage for a bit, and return after you've had some time to reflect on what other editors have – generally quite patiently, given your attacks on them – been saying. In the future, if you aren't able to engage with the content of what other editors are saying instead of directly attacking their personal ethics or integrity, you may be blocked from futher editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(Comment below copied from User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Tactfulness in dealing with others' behavior, as posted by Squish7, to consolidate this discussion in one location.)

Please allow me to table any extended response regarding my particular behavior and let us assume your warning is registered and will be considered carefully. That aside, could you please clarify the difference between what Wikipedia considers improper personal attacks, and proper handling of concerns/complaints with others' conduct. If I feel an editor has behaved improperly, am I supposed to drop the matter on any talk page and register a private complaint? What is the process? For that matter, what if I feel general behavior on a talk page has been handled improperly apart from any particular editor, that is, in a plausible denial-esque scenario in which no particular party is to blame but where something needs addressing or improving?

On the side, I honestly feel a genuine need to politely inform you that I think your empathy and tact could use tweaking. I understand your general valid right/obligation to correct a scenario in which you find improper behavior going on, but your lack of empathy with an editor being thrust for whatever reason into a frustrating ordeal, is just cold. A proper reprimand would include sympathy of my situation whether or not you feel it is the fault of WP or my naivete, and presenting the basic information that I'm behaving improperly before leaping to being "close to being blocked". In general, how is someone supposed to correct behavior their behavior until they know they're doing something wrong?

An editor already (calmly) addressed my "rhetoric" and I used this to correct myself and express my concerns more logically. If anything I was doing counted as a personal attack I could have been told once with a polite explanation on the proper process to follow if I have a dispute with an editor. It's just surreal to me that you don't pair whatever reprimand you think is necessary with a mental note to address issues that landed me in the unfortunate situation. A reprimand with elite tact would include a calm, proper level of sympathy and non-hostile information of what I'm doing wrong, as well as a note of where you think WP or the system may have gone wrong.

Your reprimand might be appropriate if I just logged onto a talk page randomly and started posting "I just hate this person!" knowing exactly what I'm doing, with no reasoning, case, or cause, and in a scenario that had nothing to do with an incident that may involve flaws in the WP system. You should ask yourself, what went wrong in the system that an editor was placed in this situation? What courses of action could be taken to better inform editors of proper behavior? Why were all the editors on the talk page inquiring about information ignored? You can assign whatever magnitude of negativity, however light, you like to the scenario of editors questions not being answered properly, but it's certainly not proper WP behavior to ignore people's basic questions (i.e. asking "where can I find this information?" and receive no answer).

You should notice here the very first trigger of the scenario was something that went wrong here. This is proved retroactively by the fact that it's been addressed/corrected on the article page. That should warrant your careful attention and consideration of the process that led an editor to what he feels is a massive problem. You don't have to agree with my reasoning to recognize that something has gone out of place.

I'm sorry for writing so much here but as I feel your reprimand is just sub-elite, not wrong, I've felt the need to present fine details that I really think you should consider when addressing editors in such situations. I will consider your words carefully, but I know from the wide spectrum of tact on WP that other editors would have handled this situation more politely. Squish7 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluntly, no—your 'correction' didn't address the concerns that I raised with your conduct. At the time I posted the warning to you here, these edits were (and still are now, as I write this reply) the last things that you posted to Talk:Influenza vaccine. In them, you continued to insist that you offered a "perfectly realistic scenario" when you constructed a baseless conspiracy alleging that "Synaptophysin has a personal financial agenda to manipulate the article/talk page", thereby committing an offence "isomorphic to perjury". If, to your current thinking, that constitutes meaningfully and constructively 'correcting yourself', then you probably should disengage from this issue for a while longer.

"If anything I was doing counted as a personal attack..." This is the core problem, really. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to step in, take you quietly aside, and explain to you in detail how suggesting – without reason or evidence – that your fellow editors are lying pharmaceutical-industry shills engaged in grossly unethical behavior is anything but an unambiguous personal attack. However much you might like to shrug this off as the fault of "the system" or lay it at the feet of innocent "naivete" on your part, what you said was flatly offensive—and no Wikipedia-specific knowledge should be required to make that determination. You shouldn't need to be specifically advised that what you were doing was wrong on Wikipedia, because it would have been wrong anywhere, in any context. (Though for the sake of completeness I will note that Wikipedia's policies on civility and on personal attacks were both linked elsewhere on this talk page: WP:CIV in the welcome message at the top of the page, and WP:NPA in the welcome and in the warning you received in November 2011.)

Addressing the more general issue of editor misconduct and inter-editor disputes (about which you will find any number of pointers in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, again linked from the welcome template at the top of this talk page), the appropriate strategy is almost always going to be to discuss the specific article content or editor behavior that is of concern, rather than to engage in speculation about the identity, occupation, or moral character of the editor in question. Engage with the content and the conduct; don't attack the person. (This is a good policy all the time, not just on Wikipedia.) You've used the {{helpme}} template repeatedly; given that you've found a fast and effective way to receive answers to your questions about using Wikipedia, I'm disinclined to give you a free pass based on any claimed ignorance on your own part. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

You can reply here. I am watching this talk page; there's no point to splitting up this conversation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There are too many points for me to fully cover without writing a thesis on the matter so let me tackle one thing that may prove constructive as you and other editors don't even realize it's going on: a lack of empathy.

Consider that four editors were already demonstrating frustrationg emotions on the talk page at the top section for a span of 16+ months. The fourth, reading the others' frustrations, went so far as to say,The fact that exploration of this topic here has effectively been suppressed does not increase my confidence in conventional medicine; it merely decreases my confidence in Wikipedia. You want to talk about things in terms of "attacks", then let's start with a group of people who are so put off by what they think is a lack of representation--completely avoidable if anybody had simply been directed to the information they were looking for at any point in 16 months--that they're attacking the spirit of WP. You can pick any mild or nonlocal level of negative adjective you want--delinquent, fault, oversight, mistake--but the scenario to this point is some mutation or formation or manifestation of notable failure of the general WP system and/or particular editors via their actions and/or their inactions. People becoming discouraged at the very spirit of Wikipedia, when any passing competent editor could have simply pasted them a link to the page they were trying to get to, is, well, you pick your mild negative term but I personally put it toward the dictionary epitome of some magntitude or value of the spectrum of absurdity.

You say I frequently use the ((helpme)) method and find it useful, and I do, and I appreciate the responsiveness, but do you realize how silly it is that a slew of editors creating a stink about a "lack of information on WP" because they're not getting basic help doesn't even create the mental equivalent of a big yellow "helpme" box in the mind of any passing editor looking at the page who could have helped them (and hence the absolute slew of daily readers that clearly are having the same concerns, as few are going to go out of their way to actually register complaints on the matter)? Do you realize how silly it would be to tell any of those people, "You have to stop attacking WP, go to your talk page, post ((helpme)), then reword your inquiry from 'I'm so frustrated I can't find XYZ on WP it's decreasing my faith in the system here' into the structural inquiry form, "((helpme)) Where can I find more information on XYZ because it's not on the page I combed?" Again, this is something on the spectrum of personally what I call absurdity.

Now, consider that those people already concerned are only taking several minutes of their time to post a blurb on the matter. I actually took precious work hours to begin researching and drafting the magic missing article, partially motivated by the sugesstion of the first person concerned saying that somebody should do so. Obviously I'm going to be frustrated with 50 people tearing apart my work, concerns, etc., etc.--me, the person actually taking the personal time to help those people and all the other invisible people that are having the same daily frustrations--just to finally find out that article already existed, which just served to prove that my suggestion to start an article on controversies, was a perfectly good idea since there was already an extensive one written. Once again, something just absurd: a sea of opposition proved retroactively wrong when the idea the opposition opposes had already been implemented extensively.

Yes, I missed Syn's sentence telling me the vaccination article existed as a response to my draft, but firstly, the fact that someone had to go that far just for someone on the talk page to announce that the article that everyone thought was missing existed, is further absurdity in my book, and secondly, it's semi-reasonable that my general mental parsing system glazed over it with the reasoning it wasn't prepared to mentally register something so unexpected as someone saying the article I wanted to start already existed and had just not been announced to all the other people becoming frustrated on the matter. I relate it to the coming out technique of someone announcing at a family cookout "pass the ketchup, I'm gay" and see if anyone even mentally register's the bomb that was just dropped. (I'm also operating on a dark color scheme that doesn't allow me to see links unless I run my mouse over them so that's half the reason I missed the link. I'm usually very good at sensing them but again I didn't pick that one up fore the aforementioned reasons.)

Let's even say missing that key sentence was my fault at that point and I should have been reading more carefully. Given that one mistake, you as someone coming into the situation late should be able to register all the aforementioned faults/quirks/absurdities/whatever, add them up, and realize it's an enraging situation for someone in my place. I'm highlighting words like "atrocity" because I have the tact to hold back posting a slew of rancid swears of the ridiculousness of the situation. Please note I declared above on this page that I have a short fuse for bickering wars and hence took extra efforts to try to politely and constructively address the situation. All the people rudely tearing apart my work when they could have made more constructive comments when I went out of my way to post a draft and leave the actual page untouched, are attacks on me as an editor and a general human being, whether or not it was proper editor conduct.

If you come into a situation and see/believe I'm lashing out attacking someone neeedlessly emotionally, it's because I'm 600 times further down the frustration road than the handful of editors who were ignored via an already absurd lack of action, anybody's particular fault or not. Fine, my behavior was improper, but the balanced thing to do would be to ingrain your reprimand with the slightest bit of politeness and empathy to my situation, i.e. an augmented form of the frustrations already expressed via the fault of WP.

I'm not sitting here eating popcorn and beer chuckling at jovial fun "personal attacks" saying "haha, look what they're letting me get away with!". I'm obviously upset via some giant big picture that needs to be addressed, and your solution is to be more hostile than anyone else has been and tell me I'm moments from being blocked. Thoughtfulness would lead you to examine the entire situation, to see I took multiple steps to avoid such a scenario; they failed, but any gram of pity for me or anyone previously addressing the situation would lead you to acknowledge faults on both ends. You treat me as if I just logged on randomly and started posting ratial slurs at people. If my behavior is out of control, then the proper thing for an arbitrator to do is look at the entire scenario. Let's say you're right and the overall net fault of my end behavior lies on my end. The balanced, mature thing to do would be to at least lace your reprimand with acknowledgements such as "I see you took efforts to avoid a bickering war, but...." and "I see that there was a notable WP oversight that is the root of this general scene, however...." and "I'm impressed at your stamina to try to correct an error on Wikipedia and help others, although..."

The reason all this is so in need of bringing to light is that if you can't empathize with a herd of editors voicing concerns that by basic math are multiplied a hundredfold in the population of general readers, then you're even more removed from the experience of the basic reader. That a basic redirection issue somehow snowballed into a massive editing war involving demands of researching scholarly journals into order to develop material that had been here all along, is by all dictionary means, absurd, and some people's books, an atrocity. Squish7 (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You're coming into this making the assumption that I was unaware of, and hadn't reviewed, your previous comments or the preceding discussion at Talk:Influenza vaccine and WP:RSN. That assumption is not correct. Indeed, one of the reasons why I cautioned you was because I am concerned by a pattern of conduct.

What I'm seeing, consistently, is a number of editors who have criticized (sometimes vigorously) your proposed addition(s) to Influenza vaccine, but who have also tried to direct your attention to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE, in particular) which explain why they don't believe your proposed changes are appropriate, and who suggested finding sources that would be suitable. As well, while many were quite critical of the sources or content that you proposed, none of them attacked you personally. None suggested that you were editing in anything but good faith. I note that despite your behavior, a number of editors have still tried to assist you in editing and improving the article.

How you cope with your frustrations is up to you. Taking it out on other Wikipedia editors isn't on, however. The degree to which you "took efforts to avoid a bickering war" is, I fear, much less perceptible than you might hope, to those looking in on this dispute from the outside. I doubt that continuing this conversation is likely to help you, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how clearly I can state the point that I was trying to start an article that already existed and the moment I realized it did I clearly and officially stated I withdraw the draft. I understand you've taken a lot of information into account but if you're overlooking simple statements I made multiple times nullifying my suggested entry--in addition to the essay above drilling in it was a redirection issue gone wrong--then there's something drastically wrong with the way you're filtering information.

You apparently missed this entire sentence entirely: To be crystal to anyone sifting through the above, I wrote the draft before I was aware there were already full articles on the controversies. I tentatively withdraw it and the sources as a draft for inclusion, but I leave it intact here as a monument to the absurdity of how poorly editors never mind average readers are directed to the material. Squish7 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If 90 people want to give me the same information and complain that they have to do it 90 times, when I generally acknowledged the points the first time or two (if you don't think so, then consider that your complete glazing over of basic statements like "I withdraw the draft" signifies something truly wrong with your filtering of the entire scenario), that's not any fault on my end.

I understand if you don't have the personal time to take into account a large picture such as this properly, but you should at least be able to recognize what type of effort it would take (like reading my clear statements) and designate your time properly. The fact that you and others keep telling me over and over my sources are poor etc etc long after I gave it up entirely shows some really horrid flaw in your ability to sift and filter information.

I've made all sorts of statements admitting wrongdoing on my part. I don't know what else you want to demonstrate I've learned things than to write a complete crystal article called "Everything I Did Wrong and How I Plan to Correct My Behavior in the Future". My mistakes are obvious and stating I'll try hard to move to correct them is just rhetorical when I thought I'd use time to be constructive with you by pointing out a particular area of improvement you might benefit from.

A reasonable person would have responded to the above with at least a single instance of "Alright, I see that XYZ went wrong here" or "You have a point with..." or "I'll consider what you're saying about..." or "Perhaps WP editors could work a bit on XYZ" etc, etc... A lack of any of these demonstrates something sincerely wrong with your ability to consider all sides of an argument. It is so, so rare in any complicated argument in life for one party to be entirely at fault and the other to have no fault.

At the infinitesimal least, you should be able at this point to see that a heated situation would have been entirely avoided if anybody had redirected the four people before me to the page everyone was looking for. In short, four people asked for help with a very basic solution (give them a link, which I finally had to go do), and didn't receive an answer. It's perfectly fine if it's no one's fault in particular, but it's certainly not mine, and it's certainly a florescent option for you to select as something to admit that was wrong in the WP system if you were looking for anything at all to grasp onto that was wrong on the side of WP. An ability to look for and admit fault in stories with two sides is a basic life skill you seem completely devoid of.

Can you even fathom that there's something really wrong with a group of people "over and over" telling me not to do something I clearly stated I'm not trying to do, this absolute morbid fixation on constatly directing me to article-writing resources when I'm not trying to write an article. I can understand if I talk a lot--one more thing I'm not going to actually write a rhetorical essay on to clearly bang you over the head with assurances I recognize my flaws and work on my issues--but you can't reprimand me without designating focus to absorbing basic statements.

The core basic fact you are somehow blind to is that I started a section to create a "controversy article" and was made aware that a "controversy article". Why would I want to do research and write an article that was already researched and written? Just because the cursed draft started the discussion thread doesn't mean it's a permanent stone-carved implied demand saturating every post I make even when I continually contradict it.

Your blindness to simple facts is sad and sickly. Do I really have to copy and paste for you all the actual wordings where I admitted wrongdoing, including in the above, and write rhetorical essays revealing the detailed in-depth manners I plan to correct everything I did wrong in this scenario? Do I really have to copy and paste this essay you're forcing me to write five times on every relevant board before a hundred people stop obsessing with telling me to do something I'm not trying to do.

I'm trying to give you an absolute key piece of advice that you and other editors are in dire need of absorbing. You need to associate with basic readers and low-level requests. You've developed instincts to operate on a high scholastic level so much that you can't absorb simple straightforward statements like "I withdraw my suggestion". It's just sad and I wish I had the power to help you develop more empathy or improve your skill at filtering basic information.

As to all the other issues, I don't even have the energy to address them. You have points and so forth but it's hard to continuously admit them in a 100% one-way debate with someone who can't admit the slightest wrongdoing and is barely reading basic sentences I'm writing out. Squish7 (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Again

I'm just dropping by to point out that I've put some disclosure information on my page, and to ask why you feel I was "hiding" anything. The day I posted the link to the vaccine controversy page was the first day I had been to it - I figured there would be a page on it, searched, found it, and linked it for you. If I had thought about it sooner I'd have posted it sooner; I'm not exactly the most active wikipedian, with only ~120 edits in 5 years. I just thought I'd try to extend an olive branch by putting something up there that might reassure you. Hope this helps, --Synaptophysin (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle discussion

Hi Squish7. I've started a new discussion at Talk:Ryan Doyle#Parkour practitioner or freerunner?, which I thought you might be interested in contributing to. I know that you have only performed one revert on the article so far, but as I have left a note about edit warring for Feraess, and in the interests of being as fair as possible, you should read up on the edit-warring policy as well. In a nutshell, we have to seek consensus for our edits rather than just revert, and you should be extra careful not to break the three-revert rule (although this rule is not an entitlement to make three reverts). I look forward to getting your input over at the discussion thread. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

2 questions

Hi, 2 Qs..

1. How do I look up the revision history of a page that's currently redirected to another page? E.g. "freerunning" had its own page but now directs to "parkour", and there's still debate about whether this should be so. It's hard to discuss without seeing the history of the old article..

2. How do I archive this talk page to start with a fresh new one without the clutter?

THANKS!

1. When you try to reach freerunning you'll land at the Parkour article and find a small note at the top: "(redirected from Freerunning)". If you follow that link you'll end up at the redirect page and can then check its history.
2. There are several methods to archive a talk page; see Help:Archiving a talk page for a detailed explanation. The easiest way is to create a new archive sub-page, say User talk:Squish7/Archive 1, and to cut and paste the content you want to archive. You can also summon a bot to archive your talk page automatically; see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for one example. That's a little more tricky, though. Huon (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Squish7. You have new messages at Talk:Parkour.
Message added 00:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

disinclusion tag? / general tags

Related Qs...
1) Is there a tag for suggesting disinclusion? i.e.:
It has been suggested that Freerunning be moved into a separate article than Parkour.
..where "Freerunning" redirects to "Parkour" under heavy debate?
2) where is there a list of all tags?
3) Is there a way of putting a unique/modified tag if there should be a statement that there is no tag for (or for which none precisely fit)?
THANKS. Squish7 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

1. We have {{split-apart}} and {{split section}}. However, if there's already a debate I don't think there's a need to tag the article; the interested editors will already be aware.
2. You may want to have a look at Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates and its subcategories. There's also Wikipedia:Template messages and its sub-pages.
3. I'd strongly advise against creating custom tags. I expect it's possible, but you can just as easily launch a discussion on an article's talk page without tagging the article. Huon (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

edit options

Why is that when I'm logged out, some pages have options to edit and other's don't, whereas they all of edit options when I'm logged in? Thanks! Squish7 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some articles that are particularly prone to vandalism are semi-protected so only autoconfirmed users (that is, users whose accounts are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits) can edit them. Huon (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

title of page / acronym

How do I change the title of a page? This page should not be using an acronym for the title, especially because there are 2 different acronyms widely used (fNIR & fNIRS). Is it ever appropriate to use an acronym for the title of a page? Thanks! Squish7 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Moving a page. I have moved this article to functional near-infrared spectroscopy. In some cases the use of an acronym as an article title is appropriate: When the topic is almost universally known only by that acronym - take for example NATO or the KGB. Huon (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

starting new article

Hi, I submitted an article for creation but I think I did something wrong. I thought I followed the directions, but when I click "Edit" on this page I don't see the article text I entered. (The draft is the only thing in my sandbox.) Do I have to re-enter it somewhere? I was on the border between submitting it for review and just creating it. Can you tell at a glance if it would serve to just post it instead of the up to 3 week waiting period? Thanks for any help with this!!!!Squish7 (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not saved your work. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't auto-save. I'm afraid you'll have to do it again. Gryllida (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cynthia Bir (September 28)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

article for creation "Cynthia Bir"

Could you please confirm that this article for creation is in the queue for evaluation? I've had problems submitting it but I think I've done it correctly now... I think the previous rejections above are both because the article was blank. wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Cynthia_Bir

I may not have web access for some time so if there's something very small that needs to be done like clicking a link in order to submit it properly, would you mind doing that? THANKS!! Squish7 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that article is not submitted correctly. To submit it, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. It's best if you do it, because the articles for creation notices are sent out based on who adds the {{subst:submit}} to the page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm that the Cindy Bir article I wrote is in the queue for evaluation? It keeps ending up on the talk page when I put it in the project page. Actually, more importantly, could you confirm that there's any point to having it evaluated at my current editor skill level? My first article months back I posted immediately and got only trivially modified, so I know I generally what I'm doing. The submission process this time around seems to state the importance of review, but it really seems ridiculous at this point to go through these hoops when I'm a decent editor. Put straightforwardly, if I did excellent with my very first article having posted it immediately (Ryan Doyle), is there grounds for posting my second (this one, Cynthia Bir) directly live, or is the submission process thus that anyone who's only written one article should follow this process, even if they're sure their 2nd article meets policy and standards? Thanks for any help! Squish7 (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article's correctly submitted. If you really think the article's good enough, you can created it directly. I'd recommend a few changes to the Cindy Bir article before that, though. YouTube isn't considered a reliable source, and biographies of Bir from the colleges she worked for aren't independent. However, there are several good sources there, and I think she's probably notable enough for an article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 06:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

editing-related searches

Where do I search for a term when I want to know its general relevance to editing Wikipedia? I saw Tony Hawk had both a "Filmography" and "Videography" and want to know the difference, but the main "videography" article isn't specific to WP-editing, and and searching the help files for the term just brought up a list of particular videography issues, not what the term means here. Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, looking at the Tony Hawk article, that the "Videography" section is mis-titled. If one talks about "Tony Hawk's videography", one is discussing Tony Hawk's practice of recording visual media, not a list of videos in which he has featured (which would be more correctly listed as a filmography). I can see what the editors in that article have done (in trying to differentiate between "films which feature Tony Hawk" and "videos which are about Tony Hawk") but the "Videography" sections would be better titled as "Videos". The term "vidography" simply does not mean "a list of videos", on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

variable extent to which I'm sure an article is proper

Can I create a stub article that I'm sure is solid from experience, then have a more lengthy article I'm not 100% sure about in the waiting queue? I always like to add more from a base stub but the more I add, the less sure I am that it's 100% kosher. Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's your choice whether to use AFC or create the article directly, and it's perfectly fine to keep using AFC after you've created some articles directly. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should always be verifiable from reliable published sources. Your personal experience is not such a source, and you should not add what you are not sure can be verified - not to a stub, not to an AfC draft, never.

If you create both a stub and an AfC draft about the same topic, the draft will likely be declined because there already is an article on that topic that could be improved instead - AfC is not meant to fact-check potentially dubious additions to an already-created article. Huon (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know the basics of WP I've been editing for years I said absolutely nothing about writing from personal experience and not sourcing properly, where are you pulling that from my question? It's almost insulting. I'm talking about the clause that if I create a new article and any part of it is not liked, the entire article may be rejected. I wrote a near-flawless entry for Ryan Doyle that was barely touched in the first copy edit, so I know how to create basics. The help files seem to stress the importance of the waiting queue review process but I'm right on the line whether to create directly or follow that process. Since it's so backlogged I just want to create the article but I don't want to post it 10 times just to debate with someone who's objections should really be covered on a discussion page, not used to delete the article.

For instance, at a first glance, Howicus said that my YouTube source was dubious, but agreed it was proper when I explained the reasoning behind its genuineness. If I enter the Cindy Bir article and someone deletes it for a reason like that instead of closely examining it, I'll be quite frustrated. I don't like it when I'm correct on an issue and are talked down to by more experienced editors. For instance, a New York times writer wrote practically the same extended article on Ryan Doyle I tried to write but for which I got completely demeaned for even proposing, saying I was sticking the finger to policy. Now they say "Oh, since someone wrote all the same things you did, now you can put it all back."

I can't stand warring so I want to follow the least path prone to error in creating this new article. I think from experience I've shown I know how to write an excellent core article, but it's the extended article I'm worried about. In other words, what is the difference between posting an article directly that someone will have to evaluate immediately (?), and using the AfC queue for the exact same thing? Squish7 (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not generally a good idea to have different versions of the same article floating about. I suggest you post the basic verion that you are confident about, and then expand it gradually. If someone thinks one of your additions is doubtful, they are more likely to revert it than to mark the article for deletion, and then you can discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

PINGING / CODE

COPIED from John Cline's page

Hi..sorry for complaining at you. Aside, what do you mean by "pinged through the notification process"? It's always disturbed me that we have to keep track of every page we might get a response from. Is there some way to be notified when people post responses to your entries? It should be like email notification as far as I'm concerned... thanks Squish7 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Squish7; although no apology is necessary, I appreciate your kind sentiments. Regarding notifications, Wikipedia:Notifications explains the user mention feature which alerts a user whenever another user mentions their name on any Wikipedia talk page. The {{ping}} template may be used or regular wiki-markup, like: [[User:Squish7|Squish7]], as long as it actively links to the mentioned user. For example, my mentioning you here should have produced a notification for you, and that is what I was referring to. I hope this explanation helps, feel free to inquire further if ever I can be of help to you. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mirrors of talk pages ??

Hi, a few Qs. If you're not definitively sure of the answers could you please point me toward a knowledgeable board/user/helpfile?

1. Is there anything wrong with copying material written on talk pages onto personal websites if you have the permission of all the WP users for the given page/passage (e.g. without quoting the WP talk page as the original source)?

2. Can what I post on a talk page be considered my own personal (copyrighted) writing? E.g. could I collect various blurbs of mine I posted on talk pages in RE to people, and consider this a publishable essay?

3. Could I create a mass mirror of various talk pages I liked without contacting all the users for permission, e.g. entitled "My Favorite WP Talk Pages", such that these could be indexed by Google? (There's some service out there that's mirroring all of WP in a new easier-to-use format like Bing and making the talk pages accessible to Google.)

4. Why are the talk pages here not indexed by search engines? It would just encourage more discussion and spread useful information... THX! Squish7 (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

1. No. You don't even need explicit permission; you already have it. All material, including talkpages is published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. See WP:REUSE for details about re-using content.
2. Everything you post is automatically copyrighted, and licenced under the above mentioned licenses. You can re-license anything you write uncer a different licence, but not what other people wrote.
3. Yes, see #1
4. Talk pages aren't our content, our content are our articles. It's the meat and potatoes of what we have to offer. Talkpages are internal navel-gazing. There is nothing wrong with that internally, but it's not what we're trying to create - that is the encyclopedia.

I hope this helps, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

talk of furthering WP?

Is there any discussion or plans of building a version of Wikipedia that has extra/extended information about its topics? I get weirded out when I see the tag "this article is too long/technical" or am told I can't add extended information about something because the topic is not important enough to warrant an extended article. What is wrong with having extra information about things as long as its properly organized? To be specific, is there talk of the future of WP leading to any of the following?

1. Versions of articles that would function as a college textbook, helping pave the way to free global collegiate education.

2. "Articles" that utilize video as a medium of presenting the core information.

3. A version of WP that covers topics that are less notable than guidelines currently call for. (What's wrong with having a tag "semi-notable" all over the place?)

WP is such a globally trusted entity that I think these things would be natural consequences in time, but is there talk of them? Where might I discuss these things? Thank you for your help!!!! Squish7 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There are several options here. Keep in mind though that the technical tags often may only indicate that the article should be rewritten to be easier to understand. Articles that are too long can often be split up into multiple articles without sacrificing readability, such as with Iceland. There you'll see that what could have been a really long article has been portioned up into articles about specific periods of history, so that these can be expanded with more details. Wikibooks may also be an alternative, especially if you're targeting actual training/classroom instruction instead of just general information about a subject.

The second option is likely to be a big no-no, at least on Wikipedia. The whole basis for Wikipedia (and the reason for its success) is that it is incredibly easy to contribute to article, and if most articles would come in the form of video, it would most likely limit who is able to contribute to people with the technical skill and equipment, and would also be more likely to exclude a lot of people who can write English just fine, but who may have problems speaking English, or who speaks with a heavy accent.

As for the third item; how would you separate between semi-notable and non-notable? Wikipedia works because it has a clear requirement for notability (at least in theory), so if the requirement would be lowered the value of Wikipedia would also most likely be reduced.

I hope this answers some of your questions, please let me know if you have any further questions :) Bjelleklang - talk 08:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

self-note: check out Wikibooks & Wikiversity Squish7 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

poor search redirection

What is with the poor redirection with searches? I search for "daredevil film" and it says there's no article for it, but suggests "Daredevil (film)". There's no reason on Earth not for the former to bring the latter directly up... Thanks for your help. Squish7 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That could be resolved via a redirect, but it's very difficult for a search algorith to tell which near miss the searcher probably meant. Google does a pretty decent job, but Wikipedia is not a search engine, and I'd say going for an exact match and, failing that, showing the near misses, clearly including the one you were looking for, is good enough for our purposes. Huon (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"a" vs "an"

Should the choice between "a" or "an" for an acronym be based on the first letter, or word represented by that letter?

We'd say a National Broadcasting Company show, but would we say "a" NBC show or "an" NBC show?

Is this choice universal in all cases, or does it depend on certain factors (such as how familiar the acronym is, etc.)?

Thanks! Squish7 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Based on a little research on Goggle and various links therefrom, you would use neither. Instead it should be "the NBC show" if you are talking about a specific show. If you are not talking about a specific show, then it would be simply "NBC shows". That is my reading on it from the Purdue OWL website and a few others. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

note; the above is incorrect. this explains it

technical talk

Where would I start making technical suggestions for Wikipedia? E.g. I think the search correction is horrible, and I have a great idea to have the date in a signature tag link to the article as it was the time the post was made. Squish7 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You want WP:VPT, the Technical section of the Village Pump. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir

Hello Squish7. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Cynthia Bir".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

misc discussion pages

Are there general message boards around here for things related to WP and wikis but not of any specific issue? Like politics or business? Of hand, I'd like to raise the idea of a global nonprofit search engine. If a nonprofit place like WP can fly so well, maybe we can do the same with a major search engine. If there isn't really a talk page for this, where could I ask questions about the founding of WP? Thanks!! Squish7 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You want the WP:Village pump. There are five sections, explained on that top page, including "Miscellaneous" for things that don't fit in the others. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Searching and decapitation

Hey Squish7, I just noticed your Village pump topic on a free search engine, I had the same quuestion a while ago so I will watch the topic with great interest :-)

On your userpage, an anonymous users made a change earlier this year - was that ok?

Also, you jest that "This user decapitates people". Personally I don't have a problem with that, but given recent events this wording may make some people uncomfortable.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Squish7, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

April Fools article - where to find interest

What paths might I theoretically take to find support for my idea of playing an April Fools joke on readers by substituting the April Fools article with a false article? It's an idea lots people might like, but who aren't actually checking the April Fools talk page for discussion about it. E.g., is there a place to discuss humor in general on WP? How about starting a special petition to override any general principle(s) regarding vandalism on articles? Here's my disucssion attempt on the April Fools article but it doesn't seem to be going well...

Here's a sample of the type of substitute article I have in mind:

April Fool's Day was a holiday that was practiced in many countries. It was banned internationally by the UN and other globally governing bodies. As of March 31, 2015, all proposed Anti-Fools Law (ALF) have been in effect and unchallenged. Local jurisdictions at every level are being encouraged to strictly enforce all AFLs. In some cases involving monetary profit of the holiday, fees may actually be induced, and in some areas, an "April Fool's joke" may be considered a criminal offense.

The core root of the long-held concerns behind the new legislation is that "April Fool's day" pranks can be dangerous or even deadly to individuals to whom the "joke" is played on. [insert extended article]

Also see:
List of Deaths Involving April Fools Day Jokes
Extended Anti-fools Laws or AFL
Criticism of AFL
Anti-AFL Activism

April Fools jokes are generally frowned upon when they affect mainspace pages. You'd want to obtain consensus for that via WP:RFC if you still want to do it, though I suggest you don't. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Rules for Fools TheMesquito^buzz 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir

Hello Squish7. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Cynthia Bir".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

dfgh

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

special:upload

MediaWiki:Uploadtext MediaWiki_talk:Uploadtext

[asdfg]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

test: coffee

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Squish7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Squish7. 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, Squish7. 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)