The Yeti

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mr. Darcy talk 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring to me as a "jobsworth." And FWIW, I can't block you for this anyway, given that we're in a content discussion. That would be inappropriate. However, you need to stop commenting on me and stick to questions of content. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another message ? I did not call you a jobsworth, I said an admin should argue their point & not avoid answering by just stating 'it's policy'. I am also not commenting on you, except in answer to where you've decided to send me messages stating I am making personal attacks. I would gladly just stick to content if you would back up your arguments and stick to content too. The Yeti 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Let's keep this here, as it doesn't belong on the article's talk page.) Actually, you said I was behaving like a jobsworth, which is certainly a PA. I have backed up my arguments in the simplest way possible - by pointing to the policy. You've now been told by me and one other user that the policy is quite rigid. I'm not sure what else you'd like to hear. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Trillion

Hi. Just a note. You moved Trillion to Trillion (disambiguation) by cut and paste. That is not a good idea, since it destroyed the page history of trillion. You should move things with the "move" tab on top which preserves the page history.

As you have since discovered, I did use the move command! User: The Yeti

I moved back Trillion (disambiguation) to Trillion. There is no need to use the name Trillion (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, Trillion is more appropriate. (I also restored the page history.)

Also note that "trillion" is not the same as "trillian", so there was no need to merge the two pages.

You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Re: Your message. Sorry for using the wrong command. The rationale I used was based on two things (though I understand your viewpoint, and the changes don't bother me) - i) trillion & trillian are effectively homonyms, so, as there was a disambiguation page, it just as useful to put trillian there, as a mis-spelling of trillion. After all, the disambiguation page is meant to be for such things when users are unsure how to spell the word correctly in the search box. & ii) the 'Trillion (disambiguation)' page was meant to parallel the 'Billion (disambiguation)' page. Please I beg do not change the general format of the 'billion (disambiguation)' page, as it has taken many users to come to an agreement (sort of) on how to handle the word 'billion' (in the English language it has two numerical meanings, 10^9 & 10^12), and there have been many arguments & edit wars over the word - see the billion & long and short scales talk pages & the histories! (it is also why there exists 1000000000 (number) and 1000000000000 (number) pages.) 'Trillion' similarly has two numerical meanings.

I guess that English is probably not you first language (but your English seems extremely good nonetheless), and so this dual number usage of 'billion' and 'trillion' may not not be immediately obvious, particularly outside of mathematical use, but it does cause many confusions, and so the whole long & short scale terminology and the Wiki links around them needs careful editing to allow consensus! (I mean no insult to you by this, should this come across clumsily). Ta. The Yeti 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that trillion and trillian are very similar. Yet they are not the same, and I think it is better to keep them on separate pages (but obviously mentioning "trillian" in the page for "trillion" and vice versa).

I am not happy with the 1000000000000 (number) article, but I won't get into an argument about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You can reply on this page if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the talk:billion note back on top. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I modified the 1000000000000 (number) article to be a redirect as per the previous consensus resulting from an AfD in June 2006. I'm also not happy with articles for these large numbers which appear to mostly trivia or obvious statements. Wikipedia shouldn't have pages for all numbers or even all powers of ten – these are dealt with quite effectively in Orders of magnitude (numbers); and the distinction between American and European systems is dealt with at Long and short scales. I'm not aware of any new consensus in favour of this article. Unless this becomes clear soon, I suggest that a new AfD is launched in order that a new consensus will emerge, and allow us to decide what to so with it. -- MightyWarrior 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The number with many zeros

I nominated it for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number) 2nd nomin. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment here . Cardamon 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Spacecraft from other planets

Hi! Please see the discussion at Talk:Spacecraft#Spacecraft_from_other_planets. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hexagesimal

You recently modified the redirect correction I made to a disambiguation page referring to both hexadecimal and sexagesimal. I don't disbelieve that the term "hexagesimal" is confused with "hexadecimal" by manies.

However, just like the term Vigesimal comes from lat. "viginti", eng. "twenty", the term Sexagesimal derives etymologically from the latin numeral "sexaginti" that means "sixty".
The latin prefix "sexa-" equals the greek "hexa-". Both mean "six". Thus "hexagesimal" is always synonym to "sexagesimal", never to "hexadecimal". Except by misusage or mistake.
-- Gluck 123 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Content box

I saw Your Comment on the Content Box talk. A bit late, I guess, but I modified it so as to answer the question, by the way put somewhere near the top of your page to get rid of it. Resident Mario (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All About Eve - Blessed by Angels

Hi Yeti, thanks for the edits you've made to AAE's discography section - it reads much better now you've deciphered my additions! Regards  :-) Dom Kaos (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dirk Gently

We clearly disagree about the paragraph reading better. actual quotations are not always better than paraphrasing as you state; it depends on whether you can express the idea better on a summary or not (which i think in this case you can). quotes should be used when they can be open for interpretation or the actual quote is quite representative, and thus a summary wont work. its not just me speaking my mind out, please take a look in here When to use quotations. if you think the second reference is important we'll leave it, but i think the first was more than enough.

also, what's the deal with the ellipsis in the portrayals section after The South Bank Show. i dont get it, please explain --Chnt (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's this project I believe you'd be perfect for

Hi, I'm The Transhumanist. I coordinate the WP:WPOOK.

Your edits caught my attention, so I looked over your contribs.

I'm impressed.

You have a wide range of interests. Your approach is direct. Your reasons are rational. I could sure use your help, on a project of very broad scope...

The team I lead is in the process of developing the Outline of Knowledge, and integrating (adding links leading to) its branches (outline articles) into the encyclopedia.

What I'd like you to do, and this is a major undertaking - if you find this interesting enough to warrant your attention - is familiarize yourself with outlines (including their design), their potential, and their obstacles. Yes, I'd like you to jump in at the deep end.

That is, I'd like you to familiarize yourself with the big picture and how the whole thing works.

I'm looking for a creative and strategic-minded editor. Someone willing to maintain a bird's eye view (watchlist and watch everything), and who can solve problems, spot opportunities, and innovate.

The more eyes watching over things (on the talk pages especially), the better. (Many editors don't understand the role of outlines on Wikipedia, and some don't even know what an outline is). The project has grown too massive for me to be everywhere at once.

The key factor here is not necessarily time commitment, but scope. And a willingness to work on any subject helps too.

If you are intrigued, the following pages are a good place to start. Have a look around. If you find this is something you'd like to champion, drop me a note.

wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Directory

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Combining disambiguation pages

Hi, The Yeti. It is true that disambiguations for some singular and plural forms "may" be combined, but that doesn't mean that all singular and plural dabs should be combined. In particular, they should be combined when it is likely that a reader looking for the plural might enter the singular, or vice versa. When the dabbed entries are unlikely to be sought using the "wrong" number, then the readers are better served by giving them the shorter lists of entries that match their search. I'll open a new discussion on WT:D to see if the WP:DPAGES guideline needs to be expanded or clarified. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Irish Postcodes Article

The Yeti (talk) - none of this is surprising really - there is a team of guard dogs on this article who are constantly restricting the veracity of the detail and stiffling related discussion. DrFrench, Bastun, ww2censor, RichardgUK, Garda40 are the main offenders and none have contributed positively to this article in any way. Right now Dr French is insisting that the word "postponed" be used when the actual Government announcement uses the word "cancelled" - as follows:

"This notice has been cancelled. The original deadline date of 12/03/2010 is no longer applicable.

The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources wishes to advise that it has cancelled the tender

competition “Project Management: Implementation of a National Postcode System”. - See Ref 19 in the article

itself.

Im glad someone is standing up to gang warfare on wikipedia and efforts are being made to stamp it out! Well done Yeti!!! Zainug (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Strike

Notice the time at which the comment was made; yes, there was an embargo on all reviews so yes really. You are NOT allowed to reveal copyrighted material in Wikipedia without permission, and in this case an embargo means a copyright enforcement on the film material. Just because you lack pre-requisite knowledge does not make my statement a "lecture". Better to discuss than jump and make foolish comment.s ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And for your kind information, the embargo lasted until March 2, 2012; the comment was made on February 29, 2012. It is MOST appropriate for strike-out. Huh, such problems when random editors make such edits. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off Idiot. You do NOT have authority to strike through/edit another's comments. And I doubt the legality (or your interpretation of) of a studio's wish to deny the revealing of plot details.The Yeti (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, you personally attacked me. Excellent, now let's see what I can do. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You came to MY talk page, rather than comment on the article page, so I'll swear at you if you comment on here for reasoning that is stupid. Your breaking of one of Wikipedia's core tenets is idiotic. Now you want to issued veiled threats too ? With added glee ? And, apart from biting newbies (the original poster), there is no legal right to ban plot details, or as you have now changed it, reviews. Not to mention one brief paragraph on a film based on a book in the public domain would hardly count anyway.The Yeti (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You have been notified that there is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue in which you are involved. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Yeti, you're correct on the underlying issue on all points, but the "fuck off, idiot" part doesn't really fly. Your talk page or not, this is a personal attack, and some percentage of admins (50%? 90%? 99%? who knows, depends on the phase of the moon and the price of rice in Nepal) are going to consider this worthy of a warning, a severe warning, or a block. Of course, it's possible to be completely wrong about something and not be an idiot, so there's one reason not to say things like that. But another reason is that it just gets you sidetracked on a tangent of arguing and ANI threads and block threats and stuff, that you probably don't want to get sidetracked on. "Go away" works just as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Although what I wrote may not be polite (sorry), it was just a heat of the moment response to a comment that Ankitbhatt had specifically come to my talk page to try a provoke, not least with saying I lack pre-requisite knowledge. It was hardly a rant, nor a detailed swear-ridden discussion of his deficiencies, nor was it on an article talk page, but a three word line whose meaning is exactly the same as 'Go away, you're wrong', particularly in most western nations (!). Ankitbhatt seemed to take great pleasure in getting a desired retort with "Excellent, now let's see what I can do", and scale this up to something more, on an issue which his was incorrect about to start with, and which belonged on the talk page. The Yeti (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Wrong to pick up? Heat of the moment is a wonderful excuse; next time if I feel it, I will go abuse somebody and demurely state "I said it at the heat of the moment". Great explanation. Yes, you did not have the pre-requisite knowledge and I know this since I have clarified this issue with an admin previously. And yes, I have taken great pleasure in bringing a up-in-the-air editor come crashing to the ground, reminding them that they are not above the rules. Whether it is one word or a whole page, "Fuck off idiot" is a personal attack and warrants punishment. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, please stay off this talk page. I believe The Yeti has made it clear you aren't welcome here, and as you've started the ANI thread, there's no further need to post here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Much I care I'm not welcome; if lies and blasphemy is going on then I have a right to speak. The ANI thread has been quite conveniently closed off, no points for guessing to whose benefit. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it another way. If you post here again, I'll block you. Yeti, sorry for the orange bar, I should probably have put this on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

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

Reel Cinemas (UK) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cinema, Newark, Andover and Hull

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Qazan

Your edit without summary was identified as improper. You can explain yourself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'improper' edit to a disambiguation page was made OVER A YEAR AGO. I'm an experienced editor, so don't accuse - WP:AGF. I don't need to explain myself, but maybe if you bothered to actually look at the edit, you'll see I took out one of the two 'Kazan' references, and the 'Gazan' reference, as there are SEPARATE DISAMBIGUATION PAGES FOR 'KAZAN' & 'GAZAN' ALREADY LISTED ON THE PAGE ITSELF. If 'QAZAN' is an alternate spelling for these, it should have said so in the text. It did not. The Yeti (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC) WP:GNOME.

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philomena (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Hermann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf and minor planets

Dwarf planets are minor planets, so using simply "minor planets" includes them. --JorisvS (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The only mention the dwarf planet entry makes concerning minor planets is "Not to be confused with". Mud clear as. The Yeti (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Second sentence at minor planet: "Minor planets can be dwarf planets, asteroids, trojans, centaurs, Kuiper belt objects, and other trans-Neptunian objects." They are nevertheless different concepts, which is what the not-to-be-confused hatnotes are for. The dwarf planet article could use a mention, though. --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowdon (disambiguation)

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Snowdon (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Be familiar with the guidelines and style
• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

[1]. See WP:MOSDAB and in particular primary per MOS:DABPRIMARY Widefox; talk 09:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, why exactly was this posted here ? Please check why before you reply, then advise, as the change I made over a year and a half ago was just a minor formatting change. The talk-down newbie template is unnecessary. The Yeti (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it clear about the correct way to format the primary topic (PT)? You characterise your edit as minor, but it broke the correct formatting of the PT, so no, not just a minor one, an incorrect one per WP:MOSDAB. After your message you editing the dab again. This would indicate, yes, these links are not helpful, but also the importance of familiarising yourself with them before editing dabs (per the warning at the top of each dab). Maybe you could explain to me why you need the newbie template when you're more experienced? Widefox; talk 11:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As several editors have disagreed with some of your dab edits, this is now not something to ignore. Widefox; talk 11:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know WTF you are talking about. I seriously believe you are confusing me with another editor. Anyway a) if you don't like the edit, change it. You have not, but are just throwing templates around on people user pages. b) I see no one has 'diasageed' at all. The edit done 20 months ago was not undone (in fact the next edit to the page was 11 months later), and is still there. That I choose 20 months later to revisit the page (something that wouldn't have even occured to me until your post) to tweak it, and, in my opinion improve it, proves jacksht. c) Really you should remember that the main and whole point of a dab page is to help people find things. In fact it really should be the overiding consideration.

Most editors would just get on with it & edit things they don't like of a minor nature without the lecturing, and without bothering other editors. This is minor, and this is petty. If you disagree, make changes to what you dislike, or get an admin. Personally I'm going back to real life, and this actually quite inconsequentual cyberspace fluff can wait. No wonder Wikipedia has editors leaving all the time. The Yeti (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And BTW, tagging your post "ignore at own peril" is dangerously close to a threat. Tut tut. Now should I post on your page a template about such things ? or do I assume as an experience editor you really should know better ? The Yeti (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the first editor to raise a bad disambiguation page edit with you. If you do not wish to read what MOSDAB / formatting the primary topic etc is, to abide by the WP:CONSENSUS of the manual of style that is your choice, but why persist even when pointed out? None of your replies convince me you understand or will stop this. If you choose to edit dab pages, it has consequences if you persist to go against consensus when informed, per WP:IDHT. Feel free to ask for further opinions, say at the disambiguation project. Widefox; talk 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously ? My entire talk page from creation is up above. In TEN years there have been SIX mentions of DAB pages, TWO of which are Bots pointing out minor piping errors or such. So just under NINE years ago, there was an amicable discussion on one, which reach a mutual CONSENSUS, and another on the Latin differences of "hexagesimal", "sexagesimal" and "hexadecimal", again resolved amicably. Nearly SIX years ago, another amicable discussion on a plural/singular/combined DAB page, which was also resolved without rancor. And Two years ago there was a complaint which I answered, and which, frankly, I was right. So exactly what leg are you standing on ? I can only think you are now trying to be tendentious. Two expressions occur to me "Put up or shut up", and ""Let sleeping dogs lie". Report me of you think I have something to answer. But I see you still haven't changed anything on the Snowdon (disambiguation) page, and frankly I still fail to see why you delved back two years into the edit history to see the ONE, and only one, small edit I made way back then, and have not edited again until now, and then felt the need to regurgitate this on my talk page. Read WP:DTTR. Frankly, I probably would never looked at the page again without this.

You do realise most people don't live Wikipedia ; that they come here when they've got the odd moment or inclination to, and do something they feel useful and enjoyable ? That not applying AGF and accusing people of being disruptive is itself disruptive ? In short, unless you have something meaningful to add, I request you go away, as I see no agreement. The Yeti (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned that dab 2 years ago, only to have to do it again. While nobody is forcing you to edit dabs, if you do, there's no excuse next time, or reason to continue to brush off other editors when it's clearly the consensus. My parting note - I'm not the only one to mention your bad dab edits, or be met with such a response. This will be my last message unless you incorrectly edit a dab again. Widefox; talk 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"I cleaned that dab 2 years ago, only to have to do it again". Wow, and irrelevant. 2 years, and an article on Wikipedia isn't as you left it! "While nobody is forcing you to edit dabs". Ditto. "I'm not the only one to mention your bad dab edits". Actually, you are, so stop persisting with this lie. In the FOUR non-bot dab mentions above, and over TEN years, and as I listed in detail, 3 were mutually concluded (the whole point of a talk page, and in fact Wikipedia), and one I was right. It is this which is most irksome, and you've been asked to "put up or shut up" on it. One dab change you didn't like, and rather than just change things (which you didn't), you prefer to irk an editor simply because it seems you can. If you don't want "to be met with such a response", then WP:Don't template the regulars in the first place, especially when the edit is years old, just change the damn article. As for "unless you incorrectly edit a dab again" - I do hope that isn't implying I'm added to your watch list, as I would consider that harrassing, especially as you are not an admin, and is based on baseless accusations, bar ONE (singular) edit 20 months ago. The Yeti (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The Yeti. 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, The Yeti. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space probe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstellar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, The Yeti!

Happy New Year!

The Yeti,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Re Template:Pern stories, the suggestions from the RfC would address both of our stated concerns, but at the expense of adding clutter to the template and IMHO making it uglier. How about adding the two collections you want, but keeping the all-Pern collections first and adding the other two after them? Dan Bloch (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)