User talk:BaSH PR0MPT

Third Opinion Requests

I removed the post because by convention and to maintain the list, we remove taken entries.Curb Chain (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, I wasn't going to remove it just yet in case I felt I wasn't versed enough to address the issue; but figured noting that I was investigating it worthwhile given how many times we double up and clash on 3O's (a good sign of activity at least!) but I'll definitely be able to assist with this one. Thanks again. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You very are welcome and thank you for the friendly response. You are welcome to comment even when other editors have given a 30.Curb Chain (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a fourth opinion? I may be interpreting incorrectly due to many years of brainwashing on statutory interpretation which implies a purposive approach, that being if it were meant to be 'third party opinions' it would be called 'third party opinions' which implies that intrinsic to the third opinion is that it's a third, not fourth, nor fifth?

I've picked up a few massive oversights in other peoples 3O's that diverted the direction articles have taken but have considered jumping in with a fourth opinion to be too bold in the past, so if you can give me any insight on 3O from that point of view I'd greatly appreciate it! It's actually bugged me a bit recently, perhaps 'party' need be inserted to avoid ambiguity and provide clarity?

I'll wait for your response, then possibly throw something up on the talk page indicative of our discussion to see if other chaps can clarify and / or see if we may be onto something that needs clarification! :) Actually, strike that, I'll finish this 3O first and stop getting side tracked. >_> BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raise great points, but I believe WP:Third Opinion is more of a form of agency on wikipedia that helps editors go to for initial help:

Think of it as a reception desk or a library desk. A reception desk usually provides information or direction to further information such as where the manager's office is, or where the washrooms are. A library desk would do the same thing but provide information that a researcher is seeking.

I realize we have WP:BURO, and I refrain from calling WP:30 a government agency, but it is a good "forum" for people to go to when a situation is deadlocked. Being a "government agency" of Wikipedia, I believe it should be transparent, and remember that we work towards conseneus, and that Wikipedia does not work on voting nor is it a dictatorship, which is why I wouldn't see it as intrusive to have multiple opiners on 3O requests.

I believe this is the reason behind the naming of WP:Third Opinion. Please don't take the forum in the literal sense. I have WP:30 watchlisted and ALWAYS audit and check the 30 opinions. I don't always read what the 30 opiner said, but I always have the boldness to opine as well if I am enthused enough to do so (I have done this once).

It isn't too late to comment on issues that have already (been) taken on WP:3O. In fact any issue is open. WP:DEADLINE Curb Chain (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, and whilst things are as I had assumed, I think I shall still refrain from giving a fourth opinion. Whilst issues aren't closed really they're just any other editor chipping in except we use templates and are uninvolved. Thus to be motivated enough to contribute a fourth opinion to me means that I am involved in some way. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, if a "fourth opinion" was given, it only builds consensus, so there is no sanction against it. Thanks for your barnstar!Curb Chain (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome, I'm surprised you hadn't got that one sooner! After all, they cost nothing to give, and mean a lot to receive! Your work is appreciated. <3 BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again:-)! I spend to much time here and all the volunteer work can't be used on a resume!Curb Chain (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

meow

Pmsyyz (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A help request

Hello, could you please help clarify an issue? There is a dispute concerning the "Autobiography of a Yogi" book article. The book is in public domain. Fac-similes are currently being published everywhere with the same cover, content, photos and illustrations. One of the contenders, NestedVariable raised a doubt whether the cover of this book is also in public domain. In the discussion there is a link to the decision of the 9th Court of Appel which ruled the book is in public domain. I read you are a Lawyer , that's why I am writing to you., NestedVariable also said there are two first editions of the book. I tried to explain that the first edition can only be, well, the first, but was not successful. I hope I am not breaking any Wikimedia protocol asking for your help. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - I mentioned there were multiple publishers of the first edition, not two first edition as per the sources provided by another editor. Thanks NestedVariable (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NestedVariable, thanks for your clarification, but what I have been trying to explain is that there is only one Publisher of the first edition. The others publications are reprints, fac-similes or licensed publications (while the book was copyrighted) of the one and only first edition. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to DRN

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs your help!

Hey there BaSH PR0MPT, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite

Hello BaSH PR0MPT. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten 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 either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to DR/N volunteers! Dispute resolution discussions need attention

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there are currently discussions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which require the attention of a volunteer. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Below this message is the DR/N status update.

You are receiving this notification to request assistance at the DR/N where you are listed as a volunteer. The number of cases has either become too large and/or there are many cases shaded with an alert status. Those shaded pink are marked as: "This request requires a volunteer's attention". Those shaded blue have had a volunteers attention recently

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	Closed	PromQueenCarrie (t)	19 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	In Progress	Jonathan f1 (t)	15 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours	Jonathan f1 (t)	42 minutes
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar	In Progress	Southasianhistorian8 (t)	10 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 15 hours	GhostOfDanGurney (t)	3 days, 11 hours
First Chechen War	Closed	Dushnilkin (t)	5 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always use {{subst :DRN Volunteer-notice }} when using this template as notification.
If your replies are directed to the template talkpage, the template was used without subst.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN organisers

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer to John Carter

Hey, Bash, I saw your offer to JC here. If you've not had any experience with either of the involved editors, would you take a look at the Soka Gakkai request listed at 3O and maybe give a 3O on it? I don't know if it would make JCs head hurt, but it does mine. (I don't tweet, so I can only poke you here.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X

Hello BaSH PR0MPT,

I have responded to the comments that you made on the Malcolm X talk page. Although I disagree with your recent tagging of the lead of this featured article, I will wait for your specific responses before removing the tags from the lead section. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empyrion

Hey BaSH PR0MPT,

I've replied to your comment on ARCA's talk page. Thank you for pointing out the conflicting number formats.

Cheers!

June 2013

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Talk:Jasmuheen, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. If you would like to propose changes to the article, you will need to do so without making contentious claims about a living person. Our policy on biographies of living persons specifically states that it DOES apply to article talk pages. Thanks. SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new face of DRN: BaSH PR0MPT

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fluffy bunny for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fluffy bunny 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/Fluffy bunny (2nd nomination) 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy and turned it into an AfD. The differences were just enough to where I think it'd be better served as an AfD so we can get a new consensus on the stuff that was added and the other information added to the article. This way it'd prevent anyone from arguing that we didn't argue the merits of the new sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Brian Dunning (author), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For something to be defamatory it is requisite that the statement not be true. The details addressed were regarding a person who is predominantly known to the world as an electronic fraudster, in fact one of the greatest e-scammers in history. A federally convicted e-scammer who's biography article talks about absolutely everything EXCEPT the fact he's a federally convicted e-scammer. The information was inserted in a manner that matches other bio articles of a similar nature, and was in no way given undue attention, nor breached neutrality. Google is your friend. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid (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) 09:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Sandstein#RedPenOfDoom. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sandstein 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&diff=587276869&oldid=587175550

Sorry, I've been away for some time. I'm sorry you perceived it to be, but that wasn't a personal attack, if you examined what I had linked you to you as a report to an admin you would have seen that, and seen that the account was created purely to vandalise and cause dissent by posting insane nonsense everywhere. By saying that he was posting insane nonsense everywhere that was not a 'personal attack' against the user but a statement describing the 'content' in question. It appears another admin eventually caught up with him in the meantime and he has been deleted. You could have saved a lot of editors a lot of work by nipping that vandal in the bud instead. If you think describing crazy conspiratorial posts and claims to be 'less damaging' than calling said claims 'insane' then ... welcome to the internet, it's a steep learning curve but I believe in you mate! BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Your recent edits on historical Jesus talk page deserve this star, because you used a novel approach that didn't give civility for it's own sake, but where it was deserved. Many people have tried to edit pages on Jesus, Religion in Nazi Germany, Religious views of Adolf Hitler, etc. and run into the exact situation you described. When they approach it with too much civility they get run off and bullied by teams of Christian editors. It's about time someone approached the situation with the civility that is needed. Brother, I have run into so many dubious sources, and what's worse absolute abominations and interpolations on legit sources. They've been doing it for 2000 years, is it any surprise that Wikipedia wouldn't be a magnet for Christian interpolations? What's worse, if you remove it, it gets reverted by not one, but two or three others and they watch every page religiously. There's a group, I estimate of about 100 who have ruined Wikipedia, and some of them are admins. Lyingforjebus (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

External links in signatures

Hello, WP:SIG#EL says, "Do not include links to external websites in your signature." I suggest removing the Twitter link from your signature. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Why does your signature have upside down text? 63.251.215.25 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm awesome. Nah, upside down text is a UTF accepted language input type. One can often choose the language setting of 'upside-down' on various social media websites to convert the entire website into upside down text. :P <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 04:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:2016 Milwaukee riots, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Utterly inappropriate edit EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert climate change

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

personal note

In case you don't know, the above template is no-fault/no-shame... I've sent the same thing to myself. If you feel anyone is so biased they need to self impose a topic ban, the way to go about it is to talk to them at their own talk page, and that failing, try WP:DR, and that failing - and your certain - then pursue WP:AE if there is a case, which for climate change, there happens to be. Personalized attack posts on article talk pages is very disruptive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BaSH PR0MPT. 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)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BaSH PR0MPT. 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)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)[reply]