Trinitresque

Note: I prefer that if I start a discussion at your talk page, that you continue that discussion at your talk page, and vice versa, but if you respond here to a discussion I start on your talk page, then I will follow that pattern.

DYK Nomination: Presseurop

If my count is accurate (or close), the article is 169 characters short of the minimum length of prose text for a DYK article. Infobox and references do not count. I suggest you add a little more content to the text so no question is raised. I have not commented on the DYK nominations page. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I expanded the article. Trinitresque (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Presseurop

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for adding that past-tense warning to Allen West's page. I was the first incorrect edit, and in my zeal I neglected to realize that he won't leave office for a few weeks yet. Your edit-viewable warning was appropriate. Facts matter. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Live article

Hi Trinitresque! Your reason for nominating "PSY" for speedy deletion was: "it is an unnecessary redirect that was created when an editor changed the capitalization from all caps to 'Psy', which was later reversed". The page is clearly not an unnecessary redirect as it redirects to a live article (that is, one that has not been deleted). – Zntrip 05:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't being very clear. I meant that it was unneccesary that PSY redirects to PSY (entertainer) instead of the article PSY (entertainer) just residing in the article name PSY, not that it wasn't necessary that PSY should redirect to PSY (entertainer). Trinitresque (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to move "PSY (entertainer)" to "PSY", deleting the target article will not help. Deleting a redirect is not part of moving a page. – Zntrip 06:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the G6 criteria for speedy deletion means. It allows for the speedy deletion of articles for "Uncontroversial maintenance, such as deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves." I want to do an uncontroversial page move, and the only reason I can't do it by myself is because of the technical issue that the redirect page has edits in it. I'm going to place the request back up, and let an administrator decide if the request is valid within G6. Trinitresque (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I now see what you were trying to do. – Zntrip 07:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gangnam Style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lewis (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) 12:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: 2012 constitution of Egypt → Constitution of Egypt

I have closed the requested move discussion and the page "2012 constitution of Egypt" has been moved to "Constitution of Egypt". Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for making these sort of edits which fixed my userboxes. I'd been wondering what made them tall!

Rcsprinter (orate) @ 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) Trinitresque (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

InfoMania

Hi,

Your edit summaries quote MOS, "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized." But "infoMania" contains a capital "M" and is therefore camelCase, which MOS:TM calls a "judgment call." Can we keep the intercaps to maintain consistency with general usage? Blackguard 21:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Maintain consistency with what? Even Current TV itself sometimes uses "InfoMania". Just look at the page title of http://current.com/shows/infomania/. And some sources use only "InfoMania", such as [1] and [2]. And it's true that what I said in the edit summary wasn't completely accurate, since there is an uppercase M, but I was trying to mean that the MOS:TM guideline in general discourages styling it as "infoMania", as can be seen in its "nutshell": "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." Standard English text formatting means we should use "InfoMania". It's just that the page doesn't specifically use the formatting of infoMania, which is very uncommon, as an example of something to be avoided.

Furthermore, I think you're misunderstanding the "judgement call" part of CamelCase. It allows for editorial discretion on whether or not to capitalize internal letters, not the initial letter, which means in this case we can make the judgement call for whether to write the name as "InfoMania" or "Infomania". In my opinion the former is better. As for lowercase first letters, MOS:TM only allows a lowercase first letter if the "trademarks begins with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter" like iPod or eBay. This is clearly not the case for infoMania. Trinitresque (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Color changes

Hi! Please, when you change map colors in Commons you should also change legend colors in all wikis where file is used. --GreenZeb (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Somehow that didn't occur to me. I've updated it now for all of the wikis, except for Polish, which I've submitted a request for. Trinitresque (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Livestrong Foundation

Thanks for the heads-up with this—I will delete the section now and keep the policy in mind for future editing.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I Love Rock 'n' Roll

This page disambiguates three extant Wikipedia pages: the primary topic and two others. The point of the tag is that we don't need a disambiguation page when we have just two pages with the same name and when one of those pages is clearly more important than the other. Imagine that the primary topic for this page suddenly ceased to exist, leaving us with just the album and the less-famous song. We'd still need a disambiguation page for them, since they have the same title and since neither is primary; the only difference is that we'd move the page to get rid of (disambiguation). It wouldn't be helpful to get rid of an appropriate page just because a third, more-famous, topic has the same name. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This page serves to tell people that there are three different pages that "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" may mean — it's far from serving no purpose. Please read the section #33 of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36, where this criterion was enacted; and if you still don't think that we need it, please take it to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've told you twice already. Imagine that you've only ever heard of one thing called "I Love Rock 'n' Roll", and it's the album, not the Joan Jett song. You go to I Love Rock 'n' Roll and are surprised to find that it's something you've never heard of. How are you supposed to find the album? Meanwhile, being orphaned is not a good reason to delete a useful disambiguation page; they're supposed to be orphaned. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. For the 6½ years that I've been editing, it's been standard practice to link disambiguation pages in such situations, rather than using multiple hatnotes. Kindly stop and either drop it or go to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No hard feelings; I thought you were unaware of normal practices, rather than just misreading — and I make that mistake frequently. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Anne Coulter

Hi. The more I think about it, the more sympathetic I am to your view that that sentence in the lead was, given the lead's shortness, problematic. I think expanding the lead is the better solution than just removing it. I have added a few items I think help summarize her career, and mentioned she gets criticism from the right as well (E.g., O'Reilly on the radiation comment) which I think helps balance it. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I started a new section on the talk page before reading this, so you can respond to that if you'd like. Trinitresque (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, have done so. thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the near future

That article is a quaternary source; I simply took information from other Wiki articles (mainly future years) and gathered them together to be more accessible. So if you had problems with the lack of sources on that page, then blame the people who wrote them in the year articles. Serendi^podous 10:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking to blame anyone in particular, but thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Of course, it should also be noted that eventually this article still needs sources, like Timeline of the far future. Trinitresque (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis map

File:World-cannabis-laws.png map should color in dark red the use of capital punishment against the cannabis trade (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and People's Republic of China). What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.45.192 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis is illegal ir Algeria: http://www.smokedepot.net/2010/11/22/marijuana-in-algeria-cephas/ http://wikileaks.vicepresidencia.gob.bo/DRUG-TRAFFICKING-IN-ALGERIA http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-ZFQyxxT4mjiOuhPgdFifOZZhbA?docId=CNG.0956340c838e90da81b27c415c96819a.401

Cannabis is illegal in Tunisia: http://books.google.com/books?id=k2By-NdV93AC&pg=PP60&lpg=PP60&dq=tunisia+cannabis&source=bl&ots=ikv8iqKBlo&sig=zRFVvXtq6pluOcyDIIpnhijh4FE&hl=lv&sa=X&ei=CsUeUcj-EMSmtAaiwIC4Dw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwATgK http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100725/local/tunisia-accuses-missing-maltese-of-smuggling-cannabis.319346

For other information read: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Can_Afr_EN_09_11_07.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.53.60 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, I'll be sure to update those countries. As for the capital punishment idea, I think it sounds interesting, but I don't think it should be included in this map. The map is specifically for posession or recreational use of cannabis. It doesn't cover anything related to the cultivation, transportation, or selling of canabis. Including capital punishment for trade countries in dark red would be interesting, but it would also remove more relevant information from the map. Country X for example might use capital punishment for trade, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that the consumption of cannabis is not decriminalized or legal but rarely enforced. I don't think there is an actual case like that, but readers won't be able to know if there is or isn't if those countries are in dark red. Perhaps a second map should be made for trafficking laws. Trinitresque (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I looked over the sources for Tunisia and they are fine, but I'm not so sure about the sources for Algeria. The AFP article on Google implies that drug trading is illegal, but makes no specific points on the legality of posession or consumption. The same seems to apply to the Wikileaks embassy cable. As for the SmokeDepot source, having a look through the website made my very skeptical that it could be categorized as a WP:reliable source. There is no indication as to who or what organization runs the website. Finally, I'm not quite sure how useful the last PDF source is. Maybe it's in someplace I didn't notice, but it seems that the source doesn't specify whether or not the posession or consumption of cannabis is legal in any country. Trinitresque (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! Maybe you could update cannabis map with some new information.

Cannabis is illegal in Namibia, Mauritius, Seychelles. In Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo it is illegal but often unforced.

http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/124024/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/b6a28fc8-e547-412e-97db-3e865224ee64/en/2003_10_01.pdf

In Botswana cannabis seems like also illegal but not unforced, see: http://www.issafrica.org/cdct/mainpages/pdf/Organised%20Crime/Legislation/Botswana/Botswana%20Drugs%20and%20Related%20Substances%20Act%2018%20of%201992%20.pdf http://www.sundaystandard.info/print_article.php?NewsID=13507 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.44.73 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've made the changes. Trinitresque (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Spirituality-template

Nice picture! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Sequestration

You and I seem to be having a problem with the definition of 2013 Sequestration. I think the first boldface words should be "2013 Sequestration", including the date (2013) and the capitalzation of Sequestration. This is because the article title is "2013 Sequestration" and that's what we should be defining first. There are redirects from 2013 Sequester, Sequestration of 2013 and a whole bunch of others.

You seem to prefer "sequester or sequestration". Why is that better than or more descriptive than "2013 sequestration or sequester"? (I've read your editing note and I'm still unclear.) If you leave out the date, you could be defining the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act (or any acts containing a sequestration that was never implemented). I used sequestration rather than sequester because I found the term sequestation was more widely used as an article title in Wikipedia (see Sequestration and Budget sequestration). And why specify sequester ahead of sequestration? I concede that I could have named the article "2013 sequestration", with the lower case "s", but that is another discussion (which I'm perfectly willing to have).

I'll be watching your talk page here for any reply. I do hope we can resolve this, rather than put it up to consensus on the article's talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I was going to move the article to "Sequester (2013)" last night, but my internet died. I have based all of my naming decisions for this article on WP:COMMONNAME, which states "The most common name for a subject,[3] as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." So for one thing, I chose "sequester" over "sequestration" because that is the most prevalent name for the 2013 cuts outside of Wikipedia. In fact, a Google News search for articles from the last month show 82 million results for "sequester" but a measly 4 million results for "sequestration". That, and my own reading of the news from various sources has led me to conclude that "the sequester" is the far more common name for these cuts. Therefore, because Wikipedia says we should use the most common name, I think it should be sequester, and that should be the article title as well.

Now as for "2013 sequester": As Wikipedia editors, we cannot engage in any original research. That would include creating new names. If "2013 sequester" was a common name for these cuts, then I'd say we should consider it. But from what I can tell, it's not even an uncommon name. So I think that we shouldn't create new names for things that already have names, and stick to simply "sequester" with a disambiguated title such as "Sequester (2013)". Now there's a second reason for this: Calling it the "2013 sequester" would not even be accurate. The cuts start in 2013, but new cuts occur all the way through 2021. The "2013 sequester" implies that all the cuts happen all at once, or just this year, and would be misleading. That's actually what I initially believed about these cuts, due to the title, then I realized that wasn't true further down the article. I'm willing to bet that some news organizations have thought about referring to the sequester as the "2013 sequester" on occasion to distinguish it from others, but realized themselves that that could be misleading to their readers. Trinitresque (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to change the article title to "Sequester (2013)" anytime soon, that's fine with me. How about "sequester or sequestration starting in 2013" (or "starting in March 2013") for the defined terms in the article's first sentence? (If you can't make the move in a couple of days, I'd suggest going back to 2013 Sequestration or sequester temporarily.) Make sure you change the "2013 Sequestration" wording to "Sequester (2013)" on all the disambiguation pages, like Sequestration and Budget sequestration, and the Template:U.S. deficit and debt topics. I assume the many other links on other pages will transform themselves to the new title as part of the "move" operation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I've moved the article and updated necessary articles. Initially, I was in agreement that it would be a good idea to write "sequester or sequestration starting in 2013", but then I came to the conclusion that that would be redundant because it already says later in the lead sentence that it starts in 2013, and the disambiguated title already gives the impression that there are other "sequesters". Furthermore, I've added a disambiguation hatnote to the top of the article, which is not completely necessary given that this is a disambiguated page title itself, but probably still helpful since this is a more trafficed article. Lastly, it doesn't appear to be a norm on Wikipedia to deliberately hint that there are other topics of the same name within the lead sentence, as can be seen in examples such as Obama, Fukui and Kingdom (album). Trinitresque (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I just thought that maybe "Sequester of 2013" would be better than the year in parentheses. Sequester (2013) does more to imply (I think) that the sequester will be over by the end of the (calendar) year; for which, see WP:CRYSTAL. And besides, I don't care for parentheses in article titles if there's another way. However, I didn't know if two moves in one day would be so good so I just created a redirect for Sequester of 2013. What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I realize that unfortunately all three names—"2013 Sequester", "Sequester (2013)", and "Sequester of 2013"—can somewhat imply that it's only for 2013. I think the redirect would be fine that way. Trinitresque (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ana Kasparian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (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) 11:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Salon Edit

Dear, Trinitresque, I ran across your undoing edit of Salon.com which took out the labeling it as a Liberal website. I'm aware that the labeling of entites is controversial on wikipedia but I agree with the origianl editor: the fact that the AJR labels it as "the best [sic] online journal" but also labels it as Liberal IS important. The omission of this label while selectively choosing the best parts of the article is dishonest. Label it as the source labels it, then let the chips fall where they may. 151.207.250.11 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't notice that I started a discussion about this on the talk page under a section titled "American Journalism Review source"? I clearly stated in my edit summary "See talk page." Please read that, because it containes my reasoning for the edit, and respond there accordingly. Trinitresque (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian

OK, then let's have the discussion. It was 4 days ago, and no one has made a single substantive point yet... how long am I supposed to wait while people revert but don't discuss? WP:BRD has 3 steps, not two...Peregrine981 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It sure looks like we have a discussion now. Trinitresque (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but only because I forced the issue by redirecting. Sometimes it's necessary to make a move or people will ignore the issue. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about an Image

Hi Trinitresque, One of the images you seem to maintain (this image) seems to have incorrect information for New Jersey (or at least contradictory to what other pages say). I described the issue on its talk page and would appreciate it if you could fix it. Thanks. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Trinitresque. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

2012 Constitution of Egypt

Hey. It's been 2 years since your comment. I have been too busy to be on the Wikipedia much in that time. Sorry. I was hanging around today. I ran across some dialog that we had about the Constitution of Egypt back then. The Arab spring was progressing then. I don't know if this is the appropriate use of the Wikipedia to ask you on your talk page, but I was wondering what you thought about the current article. I'm quite torn about what is NPOV here. I think it is horribly POV as it stands but I'm afriad of my own POV. I'd love to have an honest and frank conversation with someone about how to correctly cover a 'constitution' without bias. THIS IS VERY HARD. (sorry about the yell, but I'm sure you understand). Feel free to message me on my talk page. Happy editing & best wishes, Jeff Carr (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jeff Carr, I apologize for the late reply. Unfortunately, I don't know if I would be able to help very much with this. I have been following events in Egypt only loosely since 2012, so I don't know too much about the current constitution. I don't have very much free time these days, but maybe I can provide input on specific questions. I know that achieving a neutral point of view can be hard. In general, what I can say is to try to use WP:NPOV as a guideline for figuring out what to include or not include, always avoid original research, and always use sources that are generally regarded as reliable sources by Wikipedia. For specific issues, maybe you can bring them up at the NPOV notice board. Trinitresque (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Portrait of Clair Cameron Patterson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of Clair Cameron Patterson.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. I believe the file Clair Cameron Patterson.jpg is equivalent. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Taketa (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bai Brands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton, New Jersey. 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) 10:28, 3 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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ilhan Omar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilhan Omar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilhan Omar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilhan Omar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KSTP. 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) 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and socks

Thanks for putting a page together on Ilhan Omar. And for defending it from deletion. Important figure, important page. Mauramauramaura (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My admittedly spurious edits to "Sherrod Small"

Okey dokey artichokey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericscreen (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Trinitresque. 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, Trinitresque. 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, Trinitresque. 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Salon screenshot - May 18, 2012.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Salon screenshot - May 18, 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)