User talk:Andrensath/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andrensath. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Andrensath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping to improve the content of the 'pedia and the decorum of the community. Cheers! —Eustress talk 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all about cooperating, but which edits are you talking about? Just curious as to which ones you don't think are factual or neutral. Antigrandiose (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrensath,

The link that you added to Fan fiction appears to be broken. Is it broken for you? If so, what was it supposed to link to? Thanks! Princess Lirin (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The article Mizuo Shinonome has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help with the saiyanisland source. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

'Settlement' is merely one POV that also has many sources. With regard to Judea and Samaria District - that is a specifc administrative area defined by Israel and there are high-quality sources using both terms. The term is valid and I am certainly not pushing it here. In any case, this RfC is not about that and saying 'Israeli-occupied' is something we like to avoid in the I-P area since this is highly disputed and already implies a political POV. The RfC is about geography articles, not the political ones. --Shuki (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I was unaware of the full background here. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the NPA revert on my talk page. Pfainuk talk 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed my request for a 3rd Opinion, but I do not yet have an answer to my question. I was under the impression that it was proper etiquette to point to WP:NICE when an editor is acting in an uncivil manner. I am hopeful that a neutral opinion will help me to understand wiki- policies. Dolovis (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also generally considered polite to leave an editor's talk page alone if they've asked you to stay off it, and not go looking for somebody else to intervene. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andrensath. Just wondering, do you have citation for Gibb not being a house? I'm not entirely sure if it was, but from word of mouth (or some Scots reading material from here or there), it was a part until the 1990s or something like that and subsequently removed with the addition of a set of new houses. Techhead7890 (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No actual cite, just it not having been one while I was there (mid 2000-05). It might have been removed in the mid-90's, my year didn't even start primary until '95. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly it was removed to 6 houses? I assumed it was in 2010 but it may well have been removed in 1990 with Uttley/Plimmer. Techhead7890 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't 2010, I remember a couple of boarders being in my house while I was there as a day student. I'd have to go check the archives at the school to be sure, so I can get back to you in four days? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

with respect to this edit: Please don't do that. You're not a mediation participant, and you have no call to be editing other people's comments (banned or not). that being said, I'm undoing your edits.

I haven't used a template, but please consider this a first warning for refactoring talk page comments. I will pursue administrative intervention if you persist. thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, check this edit, where I was careful to list myself as a participant prior to striking through the banned editor's comments. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started up a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Making_reference_to_WP:FICT.3F - could you please contribute your thoughts? --Malkinann (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I really appreciate that after you reverted, you joined in the discussion. :) --Malkinann (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The canvassing should be deleted completely from the page, as now, it still attracts viewers to see what he had posted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You sure it's okay not to include manga is licensed for North America in the article (e.g. mentioning the US instead of including Canada) when infoboxes have flags for the two countries? I guess the recent updates to Highschool of the Dead would be a good example. Thanks for any clarification since that's what I always do when I create/update manga info like that. Ominae (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, your edit (see diff) about the licensing was related to the anime version, not the manga. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I know that I did the edit related to the manga. Ominae (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Those were seperate edits, I reverted the one about the anime licensing, not your second one about the manga licence. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "majority" steers from the subject matter and should be mentioned in the article body, but definitely not in the lead section. It's a weasel word.

P.S. The empty edit summary was not intentional, it's the way the revert function in popups works. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history for the Israel and the Apartheid Analogy article indicates that you are the editor who has been reverting my contribution to the section entitled "Differences in Motivation" (10.2). The reason given in the edit history is that the post by me is "POV material written as statements of fact by WP; IP, see WP:BRD. (TW)." This is untrue. The added material simply summarizes and cites relevant literature accurately and dispassionately. There is a further point. The context in this section is to provide information about refutations of the apartheid accusation by showing that the motivation for the separation of population groups by Israel is not racist nor analogous to apartheid, but has other reasons. The added paragraph gives some motivational reasons not mentioned by previous entries, and thus is fair and directly relevant to the subject. The documentation is accurate, and points to statements by leading authorities and sources. The section itself calls for fair comment on the Israeli point of view, and justifications for it, so complaining about POV is a nonsense in any case. If presenting the Israeli point of view is inadmissible, the entire section here and all defense of Israel would have to be deleted, which perhaps is what you want in the article? But what of the POV of contributions supportive of the Palestinian claim of apartheid? They too would have to be deleted. Then there would be nothing left. The additional paragraph in question goes as follows:

Gideon Shimoni, Professor Emeritus of Hebrew University, where he was head of its Institute of Contemporary Jewry, and author of a book on South African Jewry, has pointed out that while apartheid was characterized by racially based legal inequality and exploitation of Black Africans by the dominant Whites within a common society, the Israel-Palestinian conflict reflects "separate nationalisms," in which Israel refuses exploitation of Palestinians and on the contrary seeks separation and "divorce" from Palestinians for legitimate self-defense reasons.<the preceding is overly POV: A better version would be 'Gideon Shimoni, Professor Emeritus of Hebrew University, where he was head of its Institute of Contemporary Jewry^{[citation needed][when?]}, and author of a book on South African Jewry^{[clarification needed]}, has claimed the Israel-Palestinian conflict reflects "separate nationalisms," in which Israel refuses exploitation of Palestinians and seeks separation and "divorce" from Palestinians for legitimate self-defense reasons.' An actual quote for or equivalent to everything in those single quote marks from Israel-Palestinian conflict would be even better.> (Footnote reference:Gideon Shimoni, "Deconstructing Apartheid Accusations Against Israel," Interview with Manfred Gerstenfeld, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, No. 60, 2 September 2007/19 Elul 5767: see http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1806&TTL=Deconstructing_Apartheid_Accusations_Against_Israel.) The centrality of the "separation" of populations, as promoting the opposite effect than that sought in apartheid South Africa, is also argued by Alon Liel, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry. <Wrong. See Bantustan.>(Footnote reference: Alon Liel, "An Israeli View: Apartheid = Separation?!" in a symposium on bitterlemons.org entitled Democracy and the Conflict": see the August 12, 2002 edition at http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl120802ed30.html) Benny Morris the historian of the Arab-Israeli conflict has emphasized that those that promote the equation of Israeli efforts to separate the two populations to "apartheid" are effectively trying to undermine the legitimacy of any peace agreement based on a "two-state solution." <'Benny Morris, a historian of the Arab-Israeli conflict'. 'has emphasized that those that promote the equation of Israeli efforts to separate the two populations to "apartheid" are effectively trying to undermine the legitimacy of any peace agreement based on a "two-state solution."' This should be a quote, as not everyone agrees that any form of two-state solution has any legitimacy to undermine!> (Footnote reference: Benny Morris, One State, Two States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 203-4, n. 1.) This is the same point stressed by Judge Rosalyn Higgins, in her opinion abstaining from the ICJ ruling against Israel's construction of a "Wall" in January 2004: that a negative interpretation of the separation barrier was prejudicial to, and preemptive of, peace negotiations between the two belligerent parties.<And the 'security fence' and refusal to treat with the legally elected Hamas government of Gaza aren't prejudicial to, and preemptive of, peace negotiations?> (Footnote reference: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1605.pdf)

All the statements and references are fair and accurate. Please stop reverting my contribution.122.107.235.166 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(My comments are inserted inside <> tags in the above. Also, a better place for discussing this would be Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy.) --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the reverter, according to the edit history, and since there is nothing objectionable in my contribution that needs extensive vetting, I go directly to the source, you. As for the inserted questions, perhaps it is sufficient to tell you that these details about the document sources and their authors' background can be found attached to the documents themselves. The footnotes provide their own author bios.122.107.235.166 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reason to handle this discussion at the article's talk page is so that all parties interested in improving the article can take part, not merely those who happen to watch my talk page (274 and a maximum of 29, respectively. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now to your specific objections: there is nothing POV about defining "apartheid" in the South African setting as "racially based legal inequality and exploitation of Black Africans by the dominant Whites within a common society." This is what it was and no-one, so far as I am aware, argues with this, whether friend or foe. In any case, and even if others define "apartheid" differently, this is in fact how Shimoni characterizes it, which really is the only relevant issue. The footnote covers this. Shimoni emphasizes each of these traits, and especially the "racial" and "legal" aspects, within a "common society," and indicates how Israel's situation with the Palestinians differs radically. This characterization of apartheid itself, and its motivating traits, is needed to show precisely how Israel differs according to Shimoni; your suggested revision would remove this clarification of difference, which is the whole point of the contribution. The reference to racial legal inequality, the exploitation, the domination by Whites, and the common society references, are all in the source. To give quotes from Shimoni for each of these points, however, would blow out the edit to the point where it would overbalance other paragraphs in the article, not be "proportionate," and thus be revertible on grounds of overemphasis alone. If you want verification, go to the cited sources, given in the footnotes. There is no point and no possibility of reproducing the Shimoni article in the Wikipedia article. This is obvious, but giving extensive quotations would also mean that such quotations would similarly be needed for all the other sources cited in my edit, which really would blow out the proposed edit unmanageably, and this would clearly be grounds for reverting it and quite unreasonable. I cite more fully the Wikipedia demand for "proportionality" below.122.107.235.166 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point; I shouldn't have completely removed the definition of apartheid Shimoni used. Would the modification 'Shimoni has claimed that, in contrast to South African apartheid,...'(rest as per my prior suggestion) be acceptable to you? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the present wording OK? It clarifies precisely what the differing issues are. Merely leaving this in limbo, obscuring it, does not serve the purpose of the contribution. The differences are crucial to the argument, and should be left in. By the way, I went to the Wikipedia page dealing with Neutral Point of View, and amongst other things it advises, under the heading "Impartial tone: ... The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." This is precisely what my contribution does, and quotations would not further that goal. One further point: the phrasing "X has claimed" is specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia NPOV general article (see the section entitled: "Words to Watch" or the fuller discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_watch) as suggesting a hostile POV and therefore something that should be avoided when reporting on the views of sources or persons.

The present wording is not OK because it runs the risk of making people think WP agrees with Shimoni.

On the 'X has claimed'; this seems like a dialectal thing. The Times, fr'ex, would disagree that 'X has claimed' suggests a hostile POV. That said, 'According to Shimoni, X' has the same connotations in NZ English, and is specifically called out as acceptable in WP:SAY.

The issue is not what the Times policy is, but what the Wikipedia policy is, dealing with debated topics. The explicit Wikipedia policy guidelines make clear that in such contexts, "claimed" tends to cast doubt on the assertion and should generally be avoided. And as for the assertion that the present wording suggests endorsement by Wikipedia, merely because it simply states Shimoni's views without implying their dubiety nor condemning them, I refer you again to Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV when dealing with debated topics. Furthermore, since the context is the description of Shimoni's views, "according to Shimoni" tends to rhetorical redundancy and is not needed: it is obvious that this is according to Shimoni. I also would point out that to be fair, if these evaluative slantings and editorializing insertions and qualifications were (contrary to Wikipedia guidelines) to be applied to pro-Israeli viewpoints they would also have to be consistently applied to anti-Israeli viewpoints. They have not been, either by you or others.122.107.235.166 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Next, you state that it is "wrong" that Alon Liel is the former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and the former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry. This is not wrong. Check out the CV for Dr. Liel at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/4/Dr%20Alon%20Liel. But it is also possible you mean that HE is wrong in his statements. However, it is not our province to determine if he is wrong in his statements, or that Israel is wrong in its official statements; all that is required in this context of presenting extant pro-Israel refutation of "apartheid" charges on the grounds of differing motivations between apartheid and Israel's situation (which is after all the topic of this section of the main article) is that he, as a representative leading authority in Israel, made them and indeed did so on behalf of Israel and that this is documented. I understand that your POV is different, and of course you have a right to your own POV, but this section and therefore this contribution is about his and Israel's POV not yours.122.107.235.166 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make his comments accurate, as anybody who understands the concept of a Bantustan should recognise, but it doesn't really matter that much. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Benny Morris's views repeat the same objection, namely that you do not agree with him. However, in terms of Wikipedia policy it is sufficient to prove that he did indeed make these points by giving an appropriate and verifiable citation. A full quote of his long discussion is not appropriate here anymore than it would be appropriate for all the pro-Palestinian allegations either; I assume you have not demanded this provision of full quotes from each source for every cited and satisfactorily documented assertion of pro-Palestinian editors to this article.122.107.235.166 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How about 'Benny Morris,...has argued that those...are trying to undermine the perceived legitimacy...' (elided parts as per your version)?

Again, in all honesty and with all due respect for your objections, I still do not see that a fair presentation of Morris's views would be attained by eliding anything. They would instead be significantly weakened. Your suggestion of inserting "perceived" before "legitimacy" has the same problems as your earlier suggestion of "X claims that." It makes clear a rejection of the validity of the viewpoint and your view that the viewpoint is mere personal, not really true. This is judgmental and constitutes clear POV. My description is accurate and quite purposely brief enough to include the crucial essence of Morris's argument and no more, without expanding on it unnecessarily. Eliding essential considerations would make his views seem less comprehensible and effective. To repeat: it is not necessary to agree with him. But in fairness to him it is necessary to represent his views adequately. Making them less coherent would be a disservice, and indeed would further a partisan POV alien to him. I could easily have added more points from Morris's written text, as from those of all those cited here, so as to make his case more powerful and far-reaching, which I did not do, but we must give enough to convey his meaning and logic.

I was not suggesting eliding the description of his statements in the actual article, just doing so here to save typing the full version out needlessly.

Re: 'perceived legitimacy'; how about '...two populations to "apartheid" are, according to him, generally opposed to the [two-state solution]].'?

The same holds for your comment on Judge Higgins' written opinion on the ICJ case of the security barrier. The comment reflects your POV, but not that of Judge Higgins, which is the only thing at issue. According to Wikipedia standards, "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The topic of this sub-section of the main article is pro-Israel refutations of the apartheid charge. Therefore, these refutations must be allowed expression, fairly, proportionately and without negative slanting. The opportunity for negative views on these issues has already been fully provided earlier in the same article. This ensures fair and balanced presentation of both sides.122.107.235.166 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean describing their POV in ways that make it look like WP agrees with it. For the Higgins sentence, how about '...2004; she believed that...' (elided parts again as per your version)? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The context is Judge Higgins written opinion, as expressed in the formal document appended to the ICJ judgment; obviously it comes from her and represents her opinion. It was not a matter of her "belief," which, again like "claimed" and "perceived" is airy-fairy, merely subjective, personal and variable, but her written opinion, which has separate and distinct weight as a considered legal judgement that stands by itself. This does not imply that Wikipedia endorses it. It merely reports what she wrote. That is what impartiality means. I am open to changing "stressed by Judge Rosalyn Higgins" to "argued by Judge Rosalyn Higgins." Written opinions are commonly referred to as "the Judge argued that..." In any case cited statements ought not to be accompanied by approving endorsements nor disapproving negations but just factual and neutral reporting, since otherwise the impartiality Wikipedia aims for would be compromised. See again the relevant NPOV page describing how controversial topics should be dealt with -- I think the text in question fits into those guidelines.

'argued by Judge...' works for me. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain this? What about my behavior is "problematic in general" and why exactly are you telling users, especially users saying things that approach being blatantly racist, to ignore me? nableezy - 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see: You edit-war. You make personal attacks on other editors. You file spurious reports for admin intervention. How is your behaviour *not* problematic?

Secondly, do you have a link for the 'saying things that approach being blatantly racist'? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a single link to a "spurious report" that I have ever filed? Also, please provide links for "personal attacks on other editors". Sure, I have edit-warred, so have most of the editors in this topic area. Maybe "blatantly racist" is not the right phrase, how about "discredited propaganda whose purpose has been to deny the very existence of a people". For a link for that, here you go: [1]. nableezy - 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Spurious report. Personal attack. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Spurious report my ass, if I had asked for sanctions I could have gotten Shuki sanctioned. I requested a warning to Shuki to stop calling me a liar, that warning was given. Personal attack my ass, a user tries to push tired propaganda and I tell them they need to read a book. As opposed to the actual attack directed against a person that they are "problematic in general". Youve proven the low quality of your argument so I dont see a need spend any more time on it. Bye. nableezy - 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	I award you this BarnSakura in recondition of your contributions to anime and manga articles during 2010 and because everyone deserves a little recondition every once in a while. —Farix (t | c) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have time before Friday evening, your help with this politics task force collaboration would be much appreciated! If you have questions, please ask them there. Schwede66 07:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have learned for myself that your beliefs are not true. May my God and your gods bless you until the end... 128.187.97.22 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Andrensath. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You participated in a CfD on Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin two years ago. This CfD is currently being revisited so I'm hoping you can participate in the debate. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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?

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Andrensath! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)