Quartet

You have NO new messages (last change).

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.

Welcome!

Hello, Quartet, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs).

Spam

Hi Quartet! You seem to have a particular interest in ridding Wikipedia of spam.

I'm afraid you're mistaken in a number of your nominations - although not incorrect with at least one about them needing speedy deletion (just for other reasons).

Please would you read this page which explains about spam on Wikipedia and how to deal with it. You might also like to join the WikiProject on spam to help fight the good fight. You'd be very welcome!

Please be aware that when new users appear and immediately start a crusade against something on Wikipedia, other users tend to smell a point being made and may start looking into the possibility of sockpuppetry by a disgruntled user who already has an account. To avoid that happening, please follow guidelines and also consider broadening your editing.

Thanks and happy editing! 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, and I thank you for the welcome. I realize that I won't be making many friends by nominating certain advertisements masquarading as articles for deletion - however I feel it will make Wikipedia a much more credible source of information that is untainted by corporate bias. Regards. Quartet 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on my page. The fake "banned" tag on my talk page was funny - the last resort of a feeble mind. Yankees76 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Quartet 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I know it seems like I might be jumping in on a long-running situation of whose history I have no knowledge, and that's true, but it's always good to have another pair of eyes look at a situation. Unfortunately, the internet is a place where no matter how much banning takes place, some people are always going to get through. Stay diligent and thanks for my responding kindly to the use of "you two" and not taking a side. I personally think you are by far a more competent editor on Wikipedia. If ever you see me getting in a situation like that, I expect you to do the same to me :-D. JHMM13 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'd actually signed up to Wikipedia to start removing what I saw as corporate advertising on here, and got unintentionally dragged into this scenario, which to be honest, is a waste of my time - but not something I care to burn a blind eye to. Thanks for the kind words. Quartet 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Set up your email - there are users who need to contact you. Yankees76 03:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(to Quartet) No problem. Please let me know if he returns or if you want your talk page semi-protected. BTW, the anon isn't vandalizing, he's just evading his block/stalking. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks. Khoikhoi 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Soybean

Thanks for the heads-up. --Steve Summit (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. --Quartet 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't violate 3RR, especially since I just changed WP:3RR as such [1] :-p --Deskana (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's what I'm around for. --Deskana (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33 CheckUser case

Feel free to add anything to this case that you see fit. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty complete to me. Pretty sure the majority of those will show up as the same person. --Quartet 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

psamtani

Hi Quartet. I wasn't intending to add nonsense to the page. There is definitely a cult-following of MuscleTech's advertisements on forum.bodybuilding.com - I was merely reporting the phenomena. I did not vandalize any articles. Psamtani 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a source beside a link to a discussion on a bodybuilding forum? Please see WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia only accepts material published by a reliable source. Please don't re-add this material again. Thanks. --Quartet 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Burgz33 again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! --Quartet 12:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, but Burgz33 is still around, I just reverted a bunch of attempts by one of his IP address to have some of his sockpuppet accounts deleted. Oh, and your friend ECRidah8991 is probably little treytrey as well. Cheers. --Yankees76 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've seen enough, I'm tagging him along with 679ß09tfgbfn (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Burgz33 (talk · contribs) . The evidence is so obvious. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, but you know what? I don't care. I honestly don't want to waste any more time on Wikipedia douchebags. I just want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Everytime you tag a sock, he comes running to my talk page whining pretending I can't see the obvious - like I'm so obtuse that I can't tell he's a sockpuppet. I saw ECRidah8991 was Burgz from his first edit - you didn't need to point him out for all to see. All this guy is doing is looking for attention. Do what Cambridgebayweather is doing and just ignore him. Admins will block him as needed.--Quartet 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Cheers.--Yankees76 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest way to end this is..

Have an admin delete all my user account pages, socks, ips, etc. And I'll only edit constructively under an IP. Because me and you both know, I'm going to edit anyway. You can treat it as a normal IP, revert if needed be, block if making disruptive edits. That way there will be no more preteen drama on wikipedia. This got old a long time ago, as you can see I've only been making constructive edits. Lets be level headed about this, wouldn't you consider that the best option? Izz0Lite 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You wish. I don't deal with people who make homophobic and racist slurs. You're a blocked user for a reason. What you've done in the past just doesn't go away because you think you'll be able to edit anyway and we should just let you. You want to end it? The best option is for you to leave Wikipedia like indef blocked users do.--Quartet 03:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits on the Met-Rx article were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Creatine vs HMB

Oh I see, you removed HMB from Strength training because you like Met-Rx and they produce Creatine but not HMB? Even though HMB is beneficial and a natural product, unlike 99% of the placebos marketed. Effects of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) on exercise performance and body composition across varying levels of age, sex, and training experience: A review.

Actually, that review has a reference to a study which examined studies between 1967 and 2001, and of over 250 supplements, only creatine and HMB had sufficient data supporting their ability to enhance LBM (lean body mass) and various indexes of performance.

As to that "outdated" remark about HMB, I do not know what it means. "Seldom used"... maybe because it is expensive?

I do not use, sell or market HMB or Creatine currently, but I have been actively researching and reading studies (pubmed.gov etc.) for maybe three years, and if we ignore doping, HMB seems like the most promising supplement in strength training.

Bork (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Groundless uncivil accusations (that you're basing on what? editing history?) aside, HMB is simply a poor choice of inclusion in a sentence of ergogenic aids that only lists creatine and steroids otherwise. Wether it works or not, with only a small handful of mainstream companies even marketing it, and without a single best-selling supplement consisting solely of HMB, it's safe to say that HMB is not a widely used ergogenic aid (and hasn't been for 10 years) which is the reason why I removed it from the sentence. In my opinion, an unimformed enyclopedia reader would be mislead into thinking the product is widely used by weight trainers to aid in muscle growth, when in fact that's far from the case. In fact it's safe to say an average Wikipedia reader would not even be familar with HMB, and certainly not on the level of the other two ergogenic aids mentioned (and one could include whey protein as a more commonly used supplement). The addition of HMB into this article is frivolous and it was given undue weight so I removed it. --Quartet 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So can you clarify -- because average Wikipedia reader does not know about HMB, it must not be mentioned? Not even a link to the page, where they could read review of 129 studies and decide for themselves is HMB worth trying? Sounds like Chicken-and-egg_problem. It is also not mentioned in Bodybuilding supplement, will you delete it from there if I add it in there?

Wikipedia user with normal brain function can decide by himself or herself is it worth buying, it is not like they buy all the things mentioned in Strength training.

Besides, why do you care is it "widely" used? The page says "Some weight trainers also use...". That means two or more.

And it mentions steroids, is that what you want novice Wikimedia users to start experimenting with? Because you seem to know popularity of these substances, how much more popular 'roids are than HMB?

Whey / protein was mentioned there already. It is also Common knowledge.

Four stages of acceptance:

• 1) this is worthless nonsense
• 2) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view
• 3) this is true, but quite unimportant
• 4) I always said so.

—JBS Haldane

Bork (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First off Bork, please watch your tone. Assume good faith that Quartet is interested in improving Wikipedia. Your subtle jabs are bordering on incivility.

Secondly, the article on strength training is not intented to encompass fringe sports nutrition supplements such as HMB. The mention of ergoenic aids is in passing only and meant to be used as an example - which is why only a few sentences are devoted to them - there are other articles that cover them in more depth. A reader of this particular article is meant to assume that creatine and steriods are widely used - the list provides two examples and the sentence is kept short purposely in part to avoid a long rambling list where every editor adds what they perceive to be an important supplement. Adding HMB to the top of the list ahead of creatine and steroids as you have done serves only to give, as Quartet has mentioned, undue weight to HMB, which does not reflect reality. The reality is HMB is a niche supplement used by few if any weight trainers and is more a curiousity left over from the 1990's and Bill Phillips than a commonly used ergogenic aid. Certainly it's worthy of mention in Bodybuilding supplement in the proper context.

Finally to address steroids. Yes, they're more popular than HMB,, with more than a million useers in the United States. If HMB had a million customers, I doubt this conversation would be taking palce. And you're pushing it a bit suggesting the mere mention of steriods as an ergogenic aid in Wikipedia will prompt "novice Wikimedia users to start experimenting with" them. The prevailance of steroids in everyday culture makes them almost common knowledge. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will simplify why I removed HMB. Saying that "Some weight trainers also take ergogenic aids such as HMB, creatine or steroids to aid muscle growth." is the same as saying "Some people in the 1970's enjoyed hard rock bands, such as Captain Beyond, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath." If I were to read that sentence, I'd assume that Captain Beyond enjoyed the same level of success as Zeppelin and Sabbath, when in fact they were just a minor cult group. Does that paint a clearer picture? It has nothing to do with past pages I've edited or your own affection for HMB, it just doesn't belong. Plain and simple - and I'm not going to discuss it here any futher (take it to the article's talk page - not mine). If you feel like adding HMB to Bodybuilding supplement, be my guest, however note that other editors may also remove it, the same way that nitric oxide supplements were removed some time ago.[2]--Quartet 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Hey there! Thanks for your addition to Fighting in ice hockey. I just wanted to remind you to mind the reference formatting in use in an article when you make an addition. This article uses Harvard referencing. I fixed the citation you added to be consistent with the rest of the article. Happy editing. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm still getting the hang of refernce formatting. --Quartet 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert. --Yankees76 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Burgz

Do we have a positive checkuser yet? Would you be able to contribute to a new report if we're lacking one? That would make it easier to do outright blocks. However, given that all of the IPs that are stalking Yankees originate from St. Louis, I think we have a pretty good probably cause to block more liberally. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I'll start putting some stuff together. Cheers.--Quartet 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors' comments on their talk pages

Please, just don't do this. Removing a comment like that – which demonstrated a lack of 'getting it', but was otherwise not particularly noxious – isn't a good idea.

Jeffrey is welcome to respond to comments on his own talk page. Removing his response is likely to simply inflame matters, rather than calm them. He's already upset, and poking him with a stick isn't helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right - lapse of judgement. My mistake. I saw one of his old personal attacks was removed today - I thought this was as similar situation. BTW You'd think 2 final warnings would be enough though. I mean how many times would it take of me making the same edit you've just warned me for before you'd block me? 2 or 3? Yet JPH has 2 final warnings from two different admins and he's never been blocked once? How does that work? Sorry I'm a bit confused here because clearly, this user needs to have his editing privledges removed for a short time. He clearly has no respect for admins and will keep doing this regardless of how many warnings he gets. He's combative in nature and isn't going to change - a year of editing has showed that. --Quartet 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the issue is that his last 'final' warning came nearly seven months ago. With that long a lag, we tend to be slightly more forgiving, depending on the nature of the transgressions. Obviously, if he engages in that sort of conduct again (without a long period of clearly civil and constructive interaction with other editors) I would strongly support a block without further warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DoNotFeedTroll.svg

Makes sense. The long gap in his edits was a result of my straight up telling him to stop editing and cool off. Which he did - so he's taken one piece of my advice. Hopefully now that he sees it's not just a handful of individuals asking him to be nice, but a larger part of the community that has problems with uncivil methods of contributing to Wikipedia, we'll see him contribute some meaningful content. --Quartet 17:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also okay for you to leave a message on my talk page, even after I've replied to it here. It gets confusing for me when I get a yellow 'new messages' banner and there's nothing new on my talk page. 'Extra' messages are harmless, and will eventually get archived. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that. Cheers! --Quartet 17:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bench Press Records

Thanks for the barnstar! I've also commented on the BP article. Let me know if you need any further comments/help. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You know more about this than me or anyone else I know, so I know your arguments are sound. It's looking more and more like the conflict of interest issue from earlier this year again though.--Quartet 20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the WP:COI right away - he couldn't be more transparent. I think he's more into arguing and debating than actually improving Wikipedia articles. Look how many of his contributions are on talk pages either criticizing content in the article or people vs. how many edits are made actually adding material to articles. Aside from a few wiki links and corrections here and there, I can barely find any content. He's a giant time waster and now he's being enabled by this other guy who has no clue what he's gotten into. I'm not feeding the troll anymore. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you might consider this a personal attack.[3]. I'm glad you closed that discussion, BTW. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I saw it. I'm a stalker and a vandal now. I guess it's okay to attack people when you're supposed to be on a secret page. What a joke. Two final warnings and he's still trash talking me. I put that page on my watchlist after I saw him calling me vandal. Problem is noone will block him because he's being "mentored", and "we should all be sensitive to the fact that this guy is learning how to work with others". Bullshit. Users like that will never learn to work with others because they haven't learned how to admit when they're wrong. From the COI, to the copyvio image to the Einstein quote, - not one concession (unless you count that half-hearted "apology" on your talk page - 7 months after the fact). He'll never concede this point. I could go out and bench press 720 lbs. at a drug tested meet tomorrow and he'll still insist that we use the Henderson lift because it was in the 1999 guiness record book. Or he'll find some fault with the association or the lift technique. I will say no records. I removed them in the first place because there were 4 and 1 was unsourced. Now we have a whole article of sourced records - let the readers go there if they're that interested. --Quartet 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts on my talk page! LittleMountain5 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience and I am sorry...

I don't know and don't care if Jeffery ever apologizes to you - I will. I'm sorry to have put you through that. Thank you very much for giving him the rope to hang himself with. I don't know where that last outburst came from but I've been nothing but civil to him and now there's an attempt to mentor him. I know you knew how everything would work out before it happened, but now we've got clean evidence with no ambiguity and that's going to go far. I would like to counsel you not to take his rant too personally, he was ranting and never did single anyone out. We tried, now we move on. Again, thanks for letting me try. Padillah (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. You gave it a shot. I had a feeling he would eventually turn on you - as you're right, he thinks of everything on here in terms of winning and losing. He feels he was "losing" and "fired" you as his advisor - the same way an eccentric professional sports team owner would fire his general manager after a poor season - not because you didn't do what was right, but because you didn't help him "win".

Now that he has decided to reverse tactics by bringing race into the discussion I'm no longer reacting to anything he does. I have zero respect for this individual and personally feel his editing privledges should finally be revoked indefinitely. I honestly don't have the time to feed this troll, nor do I feel that addressing any of his recent accusations will have any positive affects. I'm sure that everyone involves appreciates the effort you put in though, and I thank you for it. --Quartet 17:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Do you think User:Henrydeutschendorf = User:Ericg33? --Yankees76 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Bill Phillips' Page

Hello sir. I'd like to respectfully share that the indiscriminate deletion of new material, a significant amount of which was properly referenced to third party, unbiased sources, which you made today on the Bill Phillips page, appear to represent "point of view pushing." The Phillips page contains defamatory allegations and libel per se and clearly does not conform to the stated intentions of Wikipedia. Specifically, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (July 2008)" Is there a specific reason which conforms to Wikipedia's standard practices why you eliminated new text such as that sourced from The Denver Post, October 2009, as it is a legitimate, third party source of fair and balanced information in the public domain? I say these things without any disrespect to you whatsoever. My intention is to participate in a civil discussion which leads to constructive and amicable resolution of this matter. Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan2341 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I made one major edit which was the removal of recently added material that I found was riddled with original research, read like an essay ("Many people don't know that not all of Bill Phillips' businesses have succeeded....."), was imporperly sourced and relied primarily on a blanket reference of "Transformation.com" (as opposed to specifically-dated articles/sources that are attributed to authors, publishers etc.)

Message boards/forums and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, per Wikipedia guidelines - and some of the text appeared to have been cut and pasted from a post at Transformation.com - you even copied her spelling mistakes! [4] Not only does this bring up accuracy issues (where does that information come from?), but copyright issues as well if the post from the forum was copy and pasted from another source (as I doubt the forum poster wrote that herself).

Because of all this I reverted much of the material that you added (feel free to re-add the Denver Post article as a source and feel free to ask me for help in adding refernces properly if you're having trouble).

This doesn't mean I endorse any of the other material that was/is there. This article has a history of being edited by individuals with a conflict of interest with the subject (ie: writing it like a press release, removing sourced information, and even claiming they're editing on Bill's behalf - usually to write the article as they see fit, removing or modifying any references to steroids, Muscle Media, TC Luoma, Dan Duchaine bodybuilding etc.). If you wish to discuss that, please take it to the talk page of the article, I'm not really interested in defending material that has been there for quite some time or was added by others. My talk page isn't the place for that. Thanks. --Quartet 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your intelligent and amicable response. You are right and in the future I will limit my contributions to content which can be attributed to specifically dated articles/sources. Also, I will take discussions about this to the talk page for the article in the future. Just for clarification, I'd like to share that I find the information about Phillips' background interesting and left the majority of that content untouched. My intention was to add to the article and to help, in a small way, bring it up to date as most of the information relates to occurrences well over a decade ago. Thank you again for your cooperation. Susan2341 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you put alot of work into those edits, and I took that into account when I reverted them - as at first I attempted to remove or rewrite the unsourced and essay-like material. However once I discovered that the vast majority of them were cut and pasted, I had no choice but to revert the entire group of edits. Even the current quote from the Dever Post is unencyclopedic, and will have to be re-worked. However, welcome to Wikipedia - you'll learn as we all did! --Quartet 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I'm learning already! Any chance you could help me learn how to properly re-work the small bit of information that I wanted to contribute? I definitely understand your point but I'm not sure I have the working knowledge of the proper grammar and syntax for this Wikipedia yet. Thank you. Susan2341 (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The first thing you should do is write everything you want to add in your own words (no copy and pasting), and attribute the copy to sources. You can use the sandbox to put everything down before you edit the actual article. Remember, forums are not reliable sources, so look for books, and newspaper and magazine (both online and print) articles for information. If you want I can give it a look and suggest improvements when you're ready. --Quartet 13:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan, are you also editing using the account User:Getfit1980‎? Quartet, please have a look at that users contributions - the article was completely re-written today - same MO. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Q - this one is the best yet! User:Chloe81375. Apparantely via IP "evidence" I'm TC Luoma. Check out the history of Talk:Bill Phillips (author). Cleary Susan2341, Getfit1980 and Chloe81375 are the same person. --Yankees76 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Never it's been RevDev'd and the user has been blocked. Admins don't take kindly to violations of WP:OUTING--Yankees76 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries TC!! LOL I guess I must be who - Dan Duchaine? I'll post something on the BLP page. This is getting ridiculous. --Quartet 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BUSTED!! Your friend Susan is Chloe81375. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chloe81375. Figures! --Yankees76 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that. Looks like they made two Susan accounts - one has never posted and the one that posted here. --Quartet 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I think they're after me

I was looking through his last few edits, and they all start with "U". I think it says "UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU". I think he is using his edits to make indirect personal attacks at me, or he's mocking me by calling me out (ie: "You"). What do you think?

Ha-ha! Just kidding. But not really.

I noticed you barely edit anymore. Bored of this? How's things? --Yankees76 ^Talk 20:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Been busy. I see you've been as well! --Quartet 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for taking care of corporate spam on the MusclePharm page. Yankees76 Talk 21:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Strength Training

I reverted the edit on strength training. Note that one line that Wikiloop was sourced, so changing the number is definitely wrong. I have a feeling this is a new editor. His edit summary about I still don't understand why you undid my edit (previous claims were also unsourced so I don't see how you can use that as a criterion) makes it obvious. Might need to tread lightly here. I sense an edit war coming. Yankees76 ^Talk 13:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ay though I don't think much will come of it now. I'm sure he's figured out by now that he was adding OR.--Quartet 13:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)