User talk:Work permit/Archive 2

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Your outstanding work with the images in the infoboxes is truly appreciated and therefore I award this barnstar as a small way to expres my thanks. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While some people may at times give you a hard time, I want you to know that I have noticed the excellent work that you have done with the infoboxes in some of the military related articles which I have authored. I was wondering if, whenever you have the time, you could "tidy" the images in the infobox of the List of Puerto Rican military personnel. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on your talk page. Thanks for the Barnstar, much appreciated. Take a look at List of Puerto Rican military personnel now. It took a some work. Some of the images were too small so I had to resize them in photoshop. Others needed to be cropped a bit because they had white on the side.--Work permit (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfecto! Thanks. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of them and, judging by those, I think you did a very good job. Thanks! SamEV (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, there's still no full alignment at Hispanic and Latino Americans. Could you crop the Hilda Solis pic to reduce its width? I think that image is the key to it all. SamEV (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's trickier then you may think. I can get the verticals lined up, but you get white stripes on the top. That's because of the rounding that occurs when wikipedia scales an image. Also, because the images are so different in width, the width can still be off. It's hit or miss on finding the right scaling factor that lines up the verticles and leaves no white stripe. Here, I'll show you an example of a "perfectly aligned" version so you can see what I mean. Msg me when you see it.--Work permit (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just cropped a bit off of solis. How does it look? If you magnify in you'll see sotomayor would need a bit of cropping as well. Keep in mind, if people swap or add pictures, it will be off again. The only real way to assure everything is lined up is to crop all images to the same aspect ratio, which in general is hard to do--Work permit (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem contradictory, but I actually have a lot of experience working with infobox images (I've been at WP since 2004). I've learned along the way that the pictures don't all have to be the same aspect ratio, resolution, whatever. They only have to approximate one another in that area, which allows one to lay the right combination of pictures on each row and column that will lign up right. So to that end, let me tell you in regards to the Solis picture that less than one millimeter won't cut it (pun intended). So would you mind cutting another 1.5 to 2 mm more, please? SamEV (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if your browser is showing the box different then mine, but the solis row looks fine after my crop. By that I mean the left and right side of the boxes line up with the other rows. It's the sotamayor row which is too long. If You mean that she's "too wide", that's really because a-rod is "too narrow". I lined up "wide" and "narrow" pics so they would be relatively the same height. --Work permit (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I changed her pic and cropped her to 4:3 aspect ratio. I also cropped chang-diaz and Bandini to 4x3. I then rearranged the pics. How is it now?--Work permit (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images look better now. If you want to go further and make them perfect, you might crop Chávez and Farragut (height both) and Bandini (width) just a tiny bit (a half mm, the width of a period). But in any case, thank you very much. SamEV (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude. But I restored the unretouched image of Chávez. Once you alter and use an image, you're open to charges of fraud in almost anything you do. It would be better if you suggest a different person to use than to alter the content of an existing image, IMO. SamEV (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so I'll know whether it's my browser and/or its settings before I try to fix it: do you notice a tiny gap between the Welch image and the one below it? SamEV (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your contributions to the editing of this article. I agree with the apparent consensus for substantial deletion. However, there is a negative usage of this expression, and it has a heavy presence on the Web [a la Google] : [1]. as I noted on the talk page, the expression is used in anti-Semitic discourse - as in the Protocols of Zion - to allege that Jews were conspiring to take over the world. Yet this expression is not mentioned in the conspiracy theory WP article. So I suggest you "re-direct" the term to conspiracy theory, and in that article, re-direct it to Protocols of Zion. Any valid claim that some people or country desire to "dominate the world" is covered by imperialism, I think. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the section on Toynbee dealing this expression. I also find it extremely inaccurate & distasteful to use this notable historian to justify the crackpot notion of world domination. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here another ridiculous WP "article." It's essentially a list of empires. If its not deleted, maybe it should be Merged. Or maybe it should consist of a "List." What do you think? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UGH! We already have a List of empires and a List of largest empires. So what is this article supposed to be? List of really kick ass empires I heard of? Thank god it is up for prod, let it die a quiet death.--Work permit (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that the only global empire was the British, upon which "the sun never set." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "sun never sets" however is a phrase that originally referred to the Spanisch-Austrian Habsburg empire of Karl V, though it was later applied to others (mainly the british empire) as well. regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks good now. Thank for your time.--AM ^(talk) 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I agree very much with your recent trimming of said article, and you have my support on that. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work. But the article now is just a list of three? empires. That makes no sense. Why don't you delete these three "examples"? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just deleting items with no citations. A wholesale delete invites a revert and edit waring--Work permit (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very nice cleanup! I appreciate your openness to reasoning very much. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FUI: * The Beckwith Company, expression used in said company's 1920 imprint of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, on the Title page. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! But why did you post your comment out of sequence? It misleads our train of thought. Please make the appropriate correction. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding your "magic" to the "list of Puerto Rican military personnel" infobox. It looks great! What happened was that I realized that there were a couple of images of really notable people whom I forgot to add and that really deserved to be in the infobox and that's how I ended messing things up as I normally do. Thank you once again. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FUI: I Just started this stub. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work permit,since you like to be silly and take down combined pictures on the Jamaican American article, how about you go to other articles that have combined pictures and take them down since you have nothing better else to do.

Here are some of the article with combined pictures (enjoy taking them down fool):

• Spanish people
• Italians
• Catalan people
• Greeks in Albania
• Albanians
• Basque people
• Bulgarians
• Czechs
• English people
• Estonians
• French people
• Georgians
• Germans
• Hungarian people
• Icelanders
• Maltese people
• Montenegrins
• Norwegian people
• Portuguese people
• Romanians
• Romani people
• Rusyns
• Sami people
• Scottish people
• Sephardi Jews
• Serbs
• Slovaks
• Swedish people
• Turkish people
• Ukrainians
• Welsh people
• Yugoslavs

I guess you have a lot of work to do buddy. After all your name is Work permit. --CoCoLumps (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by calling me names. Thanks for going to all the trouble for the links--Work permit (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! It was a pleasure working with you on such an interesting article!--Edge3 (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lesbian kiss episode. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian kiss episode. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give more scrutiny to whether photos on Commons are properly licensed or not. The one you linked to was public domain-self when it's pretty clear that it wasn't and is likely on the way to speedy deletion over there. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diff. Best, Ray^Talk 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to, I must have hit rollback/undo it by accident--Work permit (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for replying quickly. Best, Ray^Talk 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have a message for you in here. Please feel free to leave your input. Thank you! sulmues talk--Sulmues 03:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Work permit. You may want to weigh in on the above linked topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Work permit. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dear Work permit: I hope it isn't inappropriate to write to you like this. Thank you for trying to help, but as you can see here the IP will stop at nothing. Any advice on what to do now? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to block this IP] now? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just revert his latest edit with an invitation to discuss at Talk:Gustav_III_of_Sweden#Controversy--Work permit (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Work permit. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I specifically leave this message because I've made a typo in my edit summary of list of revolutions and rebellions. I removed the File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg from the article due to violation of fair use (Wikipedia:Fair use#Images 2, line 5). It is recommended to check the licensing and permissions in the file description page before using it in the article which merely lists or mentions the subject of the image. Or you should look for the copyleft one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the new caption I provided ok?--Work permit (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Have you read the policy yet? Giving the credit doesn't redeem it. You cannot use the image anyway. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tvm. I'll remove it--Work permit (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the file (image, audio, video or document) which is (wholly or partially) copyleft (GFDL, Creative Commons, Public Domain) if you see fit. Otherwise use the Fair Use file only in the article whose sole subject is directly related to that file. Happy editing -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did read the passage you told me to, mistakingly read line #4 An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article." Either way, I understand its only good for the specific article. Thanks again.--Work permit (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Work permit. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mootros (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, I moved the discussion we were having to the talk page. (Since it seemed somewhat meta, and the RfC itself is already pretty long). Feel free to revert if you want. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help with Nickson. I'm considering about the BLPs. Maurreen (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I thought about it and I've decided the page and the situation are too messy for me right now. Not good for me. Have a good weekend. Maurreen (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i resurrected John Murphy (technical analyst), thanks for the cache. Pohick2 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Work permit/Archive 2! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This award is presented during, not after, your work to resolve the intractable disputes that have paralyzed 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Your decision to pick up a third opinion request was followed immediately by the realization that the task would be far beyond the one of mediating between two editors—you saw that you would be mediating between two factions of multiple editors, and yet you decided to stay in the middle and coordinate, intelligently, a resolution. Thank you! Your diplomacy is much appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the barnstar. It's incredibly motivating, just when I needed it :)--Work permit (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed as much. Glad it hit home! You really deserve it. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own entry into the morass was not because I am well-versed in Iran history... No, it was in response to a post at the Content Noticeboard back in June 2009—a plea for help. I thought I could come in fresh and lend my weight as a neutral to help balance the issues, but as you see it did not turn out that way. I was just another editor who did not line up squarely with one of the factions, one more mole for them to whack. Your entry to the conflict is quite different! I am encouraged by your unassailable position as mediator, someone that must be respected, someone who will be central to the solution. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell, I was just mind my 3PO business, but it felt after giving my narrow opinion I could and needed to do more. I'm not an expert either. But like you I smelled something fishy. And so I just used my motto: wp:rs talks, everything else walks. I really enjoy fixing articles, and getting editors to agree in the process. Once and a while I wonder if anyone really cares. Then once and a while someone like you comes along and says "yes I do". Do you know what I really find impressive? I got caught in a discussion on a section on the Afghanistan civil war in the Afghanistan article. Lots of blah blah blah, no dialog. Everyone just talking, no one listening. You know what I mean. I was left with a noob editor, User:Netsquall willing to talk and listen. He had something under 60 edits under his belt. I outlined a new section under my user space, and all but made him reference the outline and change wording if he couldn't find references. We fixed an NPOV section in a highly contentious article. And all the POV editors just came along. Do you know what the noob editor did next? He went right into harms way on to a contentious article on Reconciliation (United States Congress). I just had to give him a barn star. I hope it made as much an impression on him as yours did to me--Work permit (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Binksternet (talk) Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have full confidence in your mediation skills, but was propelled to request formal mediation because of Kurdo777's rejection of your de facto role. See my note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this. I tried to create a framework to build consensus in an informal way. Seeing today's comments, I fully agree a more formal framework would be needed.--Work permit (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work Permit, this is to let you know I was happy to see you enter the talk page at 1953 coup in Iran and hope you make constructive contributions to the article. Skywriter (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have the references, by all means send them. I've got a lot of other articles I'm working on, so I'll be happy to team up on this. ----DanTD (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be out for a few days, it may take a while. But I'll try--Work permit (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my comment about the validity of of some the references in the "fear" section, to a separate section, while at the same time you and others are making comments right under the references in the "smoke" section? Please, either don't move other people's comments, or be consistent it.--Kurdo777 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "it's not the same time". This is how I remember it:

When I first proposed this section, I asked editors Lets not debate the valididty of each source. Just list the academic author, the source, and the relevant passage below.--Work permit (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[2] My goal was to develop a list of potentially wp:rs, from which debate could occur later. You took issue with that, What do you mean "Lets not debate the validity of each source"? This is a controversial topic, a source has to be recent, reliable, neutral and written by an academic or a historian'[3]. To which I responded I should have said lets not debate them for now. The goal right now is just a list under each heading. Debating each source comes after listing them out. I think it's a useful way to structure the debate. jstor id's would be ideal, but just the title and author is fine. And the relevant passage if you like.--Work permit (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[4]. You felt we should stick to modern, reliable, neutral, scholarly works. --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[5]. I replied The debate can come next, once we actually have all the sources...--Work permit (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[6]. At the time, the list was empty. To illustrate the format, I then added 3 sources myself, after you mentioned a website that had a list of the CIA documents.[7]--Work permit (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors added references.[8] [9]. You didn't add any references, but you did add a rebuttal or two in the reference section (rather then discussion section). I moved them to the discussion session. At this time, the references section had only one or two references in support of smoke, there was a vast majority in support of fear. Finally, an editor add a significant number of sources to the references section.

I noticed a few editors started to add SHORT clarifications or questions, one added a "short" rebuttal. Since there were now a significant number of references, In my last edit, I said It seems that specific (short) comments or questions would now be useful in above section. I suggest we keep out "rebuttals" to "rebuttals" for now. Only comments, questions, and answers directed to questions for now (ie no "follow-up" questions, or "follow up" comments). The goal continues to be a list of wp:rs, to the extent we can find them.--Work permit (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [10]].[reply]

Did I miss anything? And why do you think I'm being unfair?--Work permit (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's your format, all I am saying is that if you felt the references were to discussed in a separate section, then this rule should had been honored by everyone. Now, my comment looks out of place, and context, because it was moved. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just extended the format to include ONLY questions or clarifications. clarifications are meant to be narrow, like "the source is actually quoting someone else". I moved one of the comments to be consistent. Which comment are you referring to?--Work permit (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Paradoctor (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going senile :)--Work permit (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you can always welcome new accounts. :-P Paradoctor (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Third Opinion Award
		Nice job. Appreciate the reasoning. — Manway (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word of thanks. Your opinion is good, and while I may not totally agree with the inclusion of Coltrane in the sainthood category, I agree with your conclusion. Kind regards and I appreciate your views. Hope to run into you again sometime. --Manway (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given the user two final warnings ([11][12]) which were removed by the editor. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to offer an additional perspective on the question. Your input has been helpful and is very much appreciated. 142 and 99 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I enjoyed writing it!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection it's up for GA peer review, preparatory to trying for FAC. Would you care to review it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy too, but I've never done an article review before, only sent one article through GA review, am not all that familiar with wp:mos, have a bad eye for copy-editing, and hate criticizing. Does that me qualified to do it?--Work permit (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so. The guidelines seem to be fairly straightforward, and as we've never worked together before I couldn't ask for any reviewer more impartial. What I will ask is for as strict a review as you feel able (in terms of things that could be improved or need to be). GA criteria themselves seem much more commonsense-based than MOS based. If unsure, split it into GA issues, vs "other peer review comments". And if you feel able, thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You convinced me.--Work permit (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I answer your questions? You put a lot of work into searching down that primary document and the article history. I want to see you participate in that article and not be chased away. My goal is to lower the level of conflict and make it a better article. The topic is important and there's no good reason why the article can't be fact-filled and well-written. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did, I hope the amount of tension and mistrust can be lowered.--Work permit (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. (I've tried). Your work on the article energized me and I got busy tonight too. I'm glad you're interested in the subject. We need positive spirit. I trimmed back some of the long quotes but as you will see, I've got more to add (from the major books on topic). Skywriter (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think but am not certain these were part of your edits. In any case, I'm clicking the "web citation" links and they are broken, such as this one.(There are others that go nowhere too.) a b "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran". Archived from the original on 2009-06-08. http://www.webcitation.org/5hOKkVZFE. Retrieved 2009-06-06. Do you know what's going on with that? I would try to fix them but don't know anything about them and I'm not clear on why the originals don't suffice (or alternately, a link to the internet archive if the original disappears.) Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The webcite link was there before my edits. From what I could see, it was broken, but I left it in anyway. Feel free to fix it. It's possible webcite deleted the reference because its a copyright infringement?--Work permit (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed that long Gasiorowski quote to make room for a better explanation by that same author on exactly why there was a change in foreign policy between Truman and Eisenhower. I was waiting for you to be done before adding it but now have to go out. There is a lot of redundancy and the article is badly organized. The former is caused by the latter. I'm thinking about ways to re-organize it. Skywriter (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense, and is along the lines of what I had guessed. I think the motives section has improved, but is still a mess. Too many quotes, many saying the same thing. I was also looking to add material about the switch in policy. I'll look forward to you taking the lead. As you do, consider these two sources:

• Francis J. Gavin, Politics, Power, and U.S. Policy in Iran, 1950-1953, Journal of Cold War Studies, 1.1 (1999) p.56-89
• Steve Marsh, Continuity and Change: Reinterpreting the Policies of the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations toward Iran, 1950-1954] , Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 7, Number 3, Summer 2005, pp. 79-123 (summary/abstract)
  

"It has long been argued that the Eisenhower administration pursued a more assertive policy toward Iran than the Truman administration did. This interpretative consensus, though, has recently come under challenge. In the Journal of Cold War Studies in 1999, Francis Gavin argued that U.S. policy toward Iran in 1950-1953 became progressively more assertive in response to a gradual shift in the global U.S.-USSR balance of power. This article shares, and develops further, Gavin's revisionist theme of policy continuity, but it explains the continuity by showing that Truman and Eisenhower had the same principal objectives and made the same basic assumptions when devising policy. The more assertive policy was primarily the result of the failure of U.S. policy by early 1952. The Truman administration subsequently adopted a more forceful policy, which Eisenhower simply continued until all perceived options for saving Iran from Communism were foreclosed other than that of instigating a coup to bring about a more pliable government."

--Work permit (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment WorkP, and thank you for your work, but I think you have to bare in mind that a lot of these disagreements go way beyond misunderstanding. What appears to be progress in the article and collegial relations with editors may not be. Watch for the need to cleanse the article of anything that suggest the coup was more than a struggle of good and evil. I want to include such information.

We have been arguing about the article for almost a year. Look at how long the talk page is .... and it's just one of nine pages, arguements starting just last summer go back to the 2nd archive page. I'm going to keep working though. -- sincerely BoogaLouie (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input so far. If you have a moment I'd appreciate your further input on FG222's edits, in particular this one he just made to the Amway article. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it doesn't belong in the article. A straightforward deletion of the edit with a note on the talk page should suffice. --Work permit (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, I just don't think it's particular helpful if I do it :). In any case another editor took care of it. Thanks again!--Insider201283 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would if I came across an edit like that. But since I've gotten involved in the NOC article, I think its best if I don't edit any Amway articles for now. You could ask just about any regular editor on the page.--Work permit (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, what can I say, except thanks, You performed a totally head-first AGF dive from about 100 M.a.s.l.. One's comments generally should not reflect one's mood, but they tend to. Best regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Third Opinion Award
		Thanks for the leap, Work permit, and AGF for the digit awarded. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		I must say that you have been a breath of fresh air on 1953 coup page. We may not agree on many issues, but you are polite and considerate in disagreements, and I truly believe we can work together to improve the article. --Kurdo777 (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more on this issue if you are still interested.

Congratulations on the awards. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Work permit! I noticed that you have the Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant article under review at GAN, but that little activity on the article and no activity on the review has happened in over two weeks. The usual hold time for an article is around one week, so I just wanted to check in and see if you were still interested in reviewing this article. I also see that this is your first review, so I would also like to offer my help if it is needed! Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, I just got sidetracked. I'll finish it this week.--Work permit (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. Not a "formal" discussion, just a head check. What really keeps me addicted, and frustrates me at the same time, is that that there are a number of knowledgeable editors (like you), that can cite sources that are basically in agreement, and yet we can't seem to make any headway on consensus. I am perplexed. What's the problem? How do we go forward? --Work permit (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-- Think about structuring the content. I pulled all the US stuff together, and while it still needs much detailed work, at least it does not jump back and forth, and the restructure allows the many redundancies to be seen and addressed. The next section to consider is Britain and its role. In all cases, chronology is most important and, permits the story to tell itself. And of course, the article does not yet address the effect of the embargo on Iran. That's important because it led to the coup.

Thanks for staying with it. Many talented editors have been driven away. I have left (by unwatching the article) several times even for months at a time because it is difficult to advance the story. I don't know the basis of the POV-pushing. I do know it makes it hard to create a credible article.

Your contributions are welcome.

Cheers. Skywriter (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no experience with arbitration but as you know one will either be accepted or not. Meanwhile, some of the issues have been fleshed out and as my wordy contribution was cut, I moved a version to the talk page as an explainer of what has transpired. I hope you are not driven away by the conflict. Your contributions were useful and your questions quite helpful. Skywriter (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just fyi - you just reverted and warned an author here but please note that this author blanked their own newly created page which is allowable. This now just simply needs to be deleted with a db-author tag. Thanks.  7  04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was going to CsD it, it got blanked, and I reverted the blank when I should have just left it alone--Work permit (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - thanks.  7  04:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I was in the video, none of us received an onscreen credit and so there is curently no WP:V of our participation. Nice that an anonymous IP from New Jersey added the information, but its removal was indicated. Thanks for looking in and good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#1953 Iranian coup POV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wp,
Apologies. It would have been both WP:CIVIL and just plain old fashion polite if I had let you know that I was going to go on a <ref>-fest here!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Work permit. I'm hoping you can help with a mistitled page, which appears to be a work-around for a deleted page. I ask since you were involved in what appears to be at the time a perfectly justifiable deletion at the time, but which has since become a normal, average page with a large number of footnoted references.

As I write at Talk:The Graphic Artists Guild,

The logo pictured says distinctly "Graphic Artists Guild", with no "The", and the article's own creator does not boldface "The" in the opening sentence. Wiki MOS for article titles is not to include "The" unless part of proper name. Yet for unclear reasons, this page is protected and this message appears: "You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation."

I have no connection with this guild and I've not edited the page. And you can see on my user page and talk page that I am, like you, a longtime and established editor. It's probably a minor thing, but if there's no current reason to keep a page mistitled, then it's probably a good idea to title it so that it conforms to MOS. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mksalome2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --January ^(talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Work permit, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Work permit/sandbox/Ling Woo. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Workpermit, 

With your history of civility you would be a great addition to Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox Image discussion 2012. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have edited a lot, I thought perhaps you would be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Biased_article Have a nic day --Tondar1 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Work permit. 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! 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Woo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for speaking up on talk:John F. Kennedy University. 3O is a feature that I did not know about and I appreciate your efforts. Second, I ask that you contact the other editor in that debate and gently cajole him/her about being more cooperative. Besides the added article material, s/he has removed the POV banner (repeatedly) and the comments I C&P'd from my talk page. I provided a nice welcome message and various low-level messages about the editing going on. But I'm not having much success. I do not want to edit war with him/her, so the "offending" material about the lawsuits remains on the article page. S/he has removed the various messages that cut and pasted onto the article talk page. (And I've left personalized template messages about how such removals are improper.) Before I post an ANI, perhaps a message from you will help engender a more cooperative approach. Third, the YouTube link was absolutely great. What a wonderful way to start off the day! Thanks so very much. Finding that material was really going beyond the call of duty. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazi salute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Low (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) 10:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Work permit! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to give you a heads up that I mentioned you in a dispute on the edit warring notice board. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Once I saw your contributions, I thought it must be something like that. Your note at my talk was much appreciated, regardless. Haploidavey (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Federal Marriage Amendment into List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dianaaa. As you noted, the attribution has been given in this case by a hyperlink to the associated article. This has always been my practice. I will add an edit summary stating this as well. Work permit (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My main purpose was to ensure all candidate pages for the new template had been identified. Humanengr (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. It was a good post, made me think deeply about how the two are different. Work permit (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I m a trigger-happy user, am I? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't right that, it was written by the IP who didn't sign his post. His contribution to the talk page was reverted by another editor. I reverted it back to allow discussion. Work permit (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see on one of the articles I mistakenly reverted the article, NOT the talk page. Work permit (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't write it but when you revert their post you take responsibility for it. You shouldn't have reverted the personal attack. We all have the right to edit here without being attacked. You could easily have redacted. Thanks for the heads-up about the article revert though I wouldn't hve come here to complain about that. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Girth Summit here. I made an edit request at Talk:Earnest Shackleton, then thought I ought to ping you as a courtesy. I edited the original request but forgot that pings don't work if you don't resign your edit. Apologies for the confusion, thought the best thing to do would just be to mention it here. Girth Summit (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Good suggestion, I just wrote my support. Work permit (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re Ocasio-Cortez....that was my mistake--I did not mean to do any erasing. My apologies Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. I figured it was. Work permit (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you claim that the reason for your mass RVs is because "I am changing geographical locations to political dynasty's"

Here is the problem with this statement. Some dynastes make up the geographical location. For example, before the Qajar dynasty, there was the "Zand dynasty", the "Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti", and the "Afsharid dynasty". Each dynasty took parts of what we know as Iran.

Second, I changed the country names to mark which time period they were born. Lumping in the Pahlavi Iran & the current Islamic Republic of Iran is plain dumb. It is almost like saying that Nazi Germany, East Germany, and current Germany is all the same. Or to say that the British colonies in America & the current United States is the same too.

You need to allow the current time period of when they were born into the list as that changes factors. There is a difference between being born in Japanese-occupied Korea & North/South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowtow849 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By using Iran, you have the required history for the region. Better yet, by simply using the city, there is no need to identify the country. The infobox is meant to provide a geographical location, not a history lesson. There is one edit that I mistakingly reverted, that is where you made the edit in the body of the text referring to the Ottoman empire rather than Iraq.

For that revert I apologize. Work permit (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how come, for example, if I look at "Kim Il-sung", i see he was born in Japanese Korea and not North Korea? Crowtow849 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up Nazi Germany. Notice the featured article Jochen Rindt. He is listed as born in Germany, not Nazi Germany. Closer to point on the edits you made, note that Persia and Islamic Republic of Iran all redirect to Iran. I suggest if you are questioning this convention, we can create a section and discuss this at Template_talk:Infobox_person and/or Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. Would you prefer to do that or shall I? Work permit(talk) 05:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could also go to a highly trafficked page you edited and seek some editors views there. This started when you edited Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to be born in the Qajar dynasty, aka the Sublime State of Persia. Would you prefer that venue first? As a side note, several of your edits had a typo so the redirect was redlinked. I suggest you preview your edits before submitting them. Work permit (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section at Talk:Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Born_in_the_Qajar_Dynasty_or_Persia? Work permit (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Ppteles (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

Below copied from Ani for future reference -- Work permit (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Further, you did not warn the user at their talk page before filing this complaint.
  @Ppteles: Given your track record, I suggest you discuss the situation at the talk page and work toward building consensus there. It is reasonable for the page to remain at the previous consensus/status-quo version until that consensus is reached, even if it's not your preferred version. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "List of largest empires". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 September 2018.

The request for formal mediation concerning List of largest empires, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Re. your edit summary here, it appears you are the "editor who couldn't bother to check the reference at the end of a sentance and felt the need to add a tag." :) Marquardtika (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I was too hasty, since I’m also the editor who found the references in the first places [13] :) -- Work permit (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I think I was being a bit too strict the first time I added the citation. The article states:

Frequently such requests have sought a convention for the “specific and exclusive” purpose of considering a balanced budget amendment, although some constitutional scholars suggest that the work of a constitutional convention could not be limited to specific subjects. As a consequence, some opposition to a constitutional convention is based on concern regarding the scope of other possible amendments that might also be proposed for ratification as well as opposition to a balanced budget amendment in particular.

Anyway you look at it, this is funny :-) -- Work permit (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Work permit. 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)[reply]

Hello Work permit: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Park Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockaway Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opening the topic about my recordings of Napoleon III. Of course, I should have done it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.92.126.42 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Bullion Depository, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Officer in Charge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]