SiberioS

Black Confederates

I agree in your analysis of that particular editor's mindset. At this point I don't think that any sort of dispute resolution is warranted, but that may be necessary if it continues to be one editor versus everybody else. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

CSA Article

I don't see a need for arbitration on a discussion page--at least not so far. I think it would make more sense to apply a "don't feed the troll" policy at this point, walk away and leave the editor blathering. The editor in question can't seem to put together a coherent argument--claiming one thing, then trying to refute what he claimed. If he starts just inserting random quotes in the article and creating his own virtual reality then we'll see what is needed. I wouldn't actually mind seeing a well written synopsis of the CSA viewpoint about causation--the problem is in finding one that is representative and doesn't stretch the truth. I don't believe the current editor is capable of writing one by a long shot. Red Harvest (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did you have in mind, something talking about the State's Rights or Tariff issues? Sf46 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Something that is internally consistent and actually explains the South's own contemporary actions (across regions and throughout the timeline), rather than something that spins things making wild or irrelevant assertions. And its going to need some verifiable/reliable sourcing rather than editor opinion for the thesis. Red Harvest (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

American Revolution

Dude, that comment on the talk page Section 3 was unnecessary and not useful. You might try a different approach to help the discussion. Regards. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. I've about had it to here with my tolerance of people who are in essence, talkers, who do not contribute substantially to the editing and writing of articles, and whose sole purpose is wikilawyering the rest of us, who DO write substantial articles, to death. Whats really dispiriting is that not that some people have gotten a little bit mean, but that people are defending and protecting someone whose sole purpose is to wreck other peoples contributions because they presume, wrongly, that the other editor is working in "good faith". SiberioS (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have it your way. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Christian exodus.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Vallen

There are two articles on the Boston Globe site that were published this week about Mark Vallen's criticism of Shepard Fairey. Both involve the Mark Vallen critique. I thought you might like to know since you seemed interested in seeing it included on the Shepard Fairey page. Up to this point any mention of Vallen is quickly removed. Maybe it is time to add it? How many notable sources of the critique does their need to be before it is worth mentioning? I've already been turned off from helping the article to be more neutral since another person reverts anything that I add if it is criticism of Fairey. Artblogs (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Geothermal energy in China

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Geothermal power in China has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Hey, thanks for stopping by my talk page. I do see your point, both on my talk page, and on the talk page of the article now that I've seen it. It would be helpful if you could expand that article though, so that it doesn't remain a stub... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Christian exodus.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)