Open main menu


Hello, Tuxide, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  :P J.reed Flag of the United States.svg 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the :P on the end... Tuxide 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)



Thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism of my user page. --Coolcaesar 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


In regards to your question, I too went through all the help pages looking for a code to display template messages but not the category. It does presumably exist, I just can't find it. However, what I can do is offer you the template design code I found, which won't add the category, but will still show you the message: I hope it helps. Dev920 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while.
As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her.
This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts; if the article has not been edited in the past two hours, this template has probably been left in place accidentally, and may be removed.

Skutt CatholicEdit

Go for it :) You won't hurt my feelings any. I just wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to read the article. So if its posted somewhere else, thats great. Wjhonson 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you should be removing the comments of others from the Talk page? I mean sure the comment was silly, but still it takes a lot of convincing that other people comments should be purged in that way, in my opinion. I'm talking about the comment you removed from the anon editor.Wjhonson 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think "off-topic" might be the wrong expression. If on the Abraham Lincoln page, I say "Abraham Lincoln loved pineapples!" that wouldn't be off-topic. It might be vandalism or libel perhaps :) If someone says "Skutt sucks" thats vandalism I'd say. But I'm just not clear on exactly when we can revert vandalism from *talk* pages. The bar is much higher, then reverting from article pages, it seems. I don't have a clear answer, but it seems questionable :) Wjhonson 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

not vandalism to Wal-MartEdit

I apologize if my edits looked like vandalism. I was attempting to fix what initially looked to me like an error on the page and got picked up by somebody anti-vandalism bot as a vandal. I never intended to be mistaken for a vandal. Dr. Cash 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, I didn't have a problem with your edits to the financial stuff. I was looking at your edit summary of, "(stoopid google toolbar)," and misread something,... now that I see it, you were fixing an incorrect URL, rather than screwing it up,... sorry! Dr. Cash 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wal-Mart and minor editsEdit

I guess I sort of developed a bad habit with editing other pages; I've been a bit 'liberal' with deciding what is a 'minor edit' ... probably should be more careful in the future. Thanks for letting me know! Dr. Cash 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


That made my night, hilarious edit and your summary. Happy editing to you! Teke 03:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wonderful! Don't forget warning templates on the user page. J.reed   03:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: talk commentEdit

If we do not relay true information based on reality, why are we here, why do we bother,if people are to lazy to read then this is the wrong site for them anyway isn't it. And I personlly belive maybe if we were to expand and explain the facts and why they are facts, we would have far less arguing and bs. And a whole lot more information. I think you would be very supprised at how many people are more interested in the how, rather then the what. True education and learning starts with the yerning for information and that leads to educated people, rather then educated fools, which is what we turn out even from this site.

Let me put it this way, its the differance between reading how say a speaker is made on a sheet of paper with no pictures V.S. going into the factory.

And this is where Wikipedia as a whole has failed, not enough real world information just a lot of POV being tossed around. Wikipedia is so afraid of copyright issues it won't even allow the use of true forms of multimedia to relay true information. If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a video clip worth a sound clip??? So if my stuff runs long its because of the lack of the ablity to relay the info in any other format. And there is nothing wrong with that.Ase500 06:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

...what? Tuxide 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tux if you haven't figured it out I don't care about the "Good" community rules, its BS. So don't bother telling me not to extend my responses, Cuz honestly if you keep it short and sweet, its nothing, a waste of time. If we don't relay true information, which takes many words its a waste, why not just format like this then ex.


Sales: xxxxx Profit: xxxx Number of Stores: xxxxx


I am sorry I just honestly don't like people like you, you always have to have some smug response, you can't just let people edit information, and discuss it, your so busy looking up rules, to patrol everyone else. And to be honest when this site started half the rules didn't exist and the whole site was much better off because people could honestly make an effort to better the information. Yes there were many wikifights, and the entries ran long, but atleast there was information here, now since people like you came along, wanting this rule and that rule and then voting on them while leaving the intent and betterment of the site in the dust. It used to be you came here and edited entries, added facts, and if someone had a problem with it you directed them to where the proof was. no everybody is so wrapped up in the rules, and everything has to be discussed, And god help you if you don't follow the rule for this or that, you will have 20 egocentric people writting you about it, oh my god like the world is going to end if a comment or a point runs a little long. Heres a thought for you, keep your smug comments to yourself, none of my points in the walmart discussion where directed at you, it was an explation of why the servant leader discription applies and an example of how the company works with in that guide. And you being you had to go make a deal out of it on my talk page, oh my god, I ran long. How petty.Ase500 10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

...what? Tuxide 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow can we say dense....Ase500 22:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

...what? Tuxide 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hows this for you. Like I side try keeping your smug comments to yourself... I don't like people that need to quote the rules out of context simply to make themself bigger(if you know what I mean). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ase500 (talkcontribs) 22:05, 17 August 2006.

...what? Tuxide 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Read This Ase500 10:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

...what? Tuxide 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Ase500 12:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

...what? Tuxide 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wal-Mart toc, consistency in company articlesEdit

My idea was that we should make all company articles consistent, not just ones about retail companies. Take a look at Apple Computer, Microsoft, Gateway Inc for examples of good structures which all include "Corporate affairs" sections. — Wackymacs 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good idea, although I don't like Microsoft either. ;-) I REALLY want to see the Wal-Mart article featured!!! — Wackymacs 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think WP:BIZE does have a style guide really, but I do like the structures currently used by those three computer company articles I mentioned. — Wackymacs 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject RetailingEdit

Thanks for the info! I've added myself to the 'members' list. Another article I've been keeping an eye on is Best Buy. The article was in poor shape, though cleaned up a bit recently. There's still some POV concerns, and some minor criticism (though not nearly as bad as Wal-Mart ;-) ... Though it is cleaner now, it's still a bit light and could use some work. The 'external links' section is a bit long, too. Dr. Cash 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I'm not sure how exactly I ended up on your talk page, but I just have to say this: your "...what?" response is awesome. - Valarauka(T/C) 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, happy editing to you :-) Regards, Tuxide 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Not that I particularly like MascotGuy either, but you should probably refrain from saying things like "rv WP:LTA/MG bastard"—civility and Wikiquette and all. —tregoweth (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't worry about it too much; I think we're all allowed the occasional outburst. It was just a reminder that we should all try to be civil. —tregoweth (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

citation style tag on Gamble-SkogmoEdit

You added the {{citation style}} tag to Gamble-Skogmo, but didn't explain anywhere what was wrong. I don't see any obvious problem. External links are fine, although not the best, of course. Please remove the tag, or clarify the problems you see. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for contacting me. Yours is the first message I got on Wikipedia. I shall add the information but it will be gradual. Please be patient with me. Thank you again Alfred Legrand 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But Hoobastank is t3h 1337!Edit

How could you delete that, you monster, you!-- 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Settle a betEdit

I was told that you are a bot. To clarify that you are not a bot, please tell me what 3 times 4 is. (It's greater than 11, less that 13!) 03:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talkcontribs)

3 times 4 is Tuxide 03:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NO Thanks!Edit

Please explain why you deleted my additions! :)

Wide WindowEdit

I know it looked like I was vandalizing the article by adding "in the book series A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket", and I'm sorry for that, but if you looked at my previous edits my intention was to just add the byline at the end rather than replacing the whole thing.--CyberGhostface 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. What does it mean that I was on a blacklist, though?--CyberGhostface 03:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


The page that he copied it from is defunct and can be only accessed via It was a faux sheriff's site made by Rob Zombie to promote The Devil's Rejects. If he tries it again I'll go through the records at archive, but I distinctly remember the text that he wrote to be from that site. It reads just like the page, format and all.--CyberGhostface 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

oh tuxideEdit

tuxide you are a classy man

:) -- 05:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dropping you a lineEdit

For whatever reason, I can't say anything on IRC ("#wikipedia :Cannot send to channel"), and when I attempted to /msg you a response, I got "Private messages from unregistered users are currently blocked due to spam problems, but you can always message a staffer. Please register!").

So anyway, to answer your question, I've just never considered "pissed" to be serious profanity, especially given that it isn't one of the "universal"-type swears (as opposed to shit or fuck). "Bloody" is, from what I understand, a lot more of a swear word in England and/or Australia, whereas in the U.S., it is incredibly weak; I'd put "pissed" on approximately the same level. EVula 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Hypermarket#"1st" HypermarketEdit

You said in this sectio of the talk page: Commenting on contributors instead of the content is very off-topic here. Reviewing what was said in that section, I found only four mentions of user Caldorwards4 (I'm assuming that is who you are referring to as the editor being commented on), and all of those were in the context of discussing specific edits (Caldorwards4's source, Caldorwards4's rv, Caldorwards4 had to find his link ... Caldorwards4's entry). As far as I can tell, in no way whatsoever were they a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:AGF, and all of the comments were intended to improve the article (being about hypermarkets, which company had the first, and who pioneered the concept, are certainly relevant, in my opinion).

So - could you identify some specific wording in that section that is problematical, or when you said "here" did you mean some other section (such as "Hypermarket Pioneer")? If the latter, I'd really appreciate your moving your comment to that other section, since where it is now implies there are problems with the section it's in, and if that's not the case, then it could be considered misleading.

Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 13:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah noEdit

Stop removing comments from talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BonniePrinceCharlie (talkcontribs) 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

ST47 - necessary?Edit

I understand you are just trying to help but maybe you could be a bit less mean to ST47? It's not my place and not my rules, I guess, but you seemed a bit confrontational. I thought my cooler head was doing the job but that's a judgment call I guess. Thanks. BonniePrinceCharlie 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

John GeisseEdit

Dear Tuxide, Thank you for your article on John F. Geisse. I updated it a bit. Rowley's book is fairly good on Target but she failed to get the inside true story on Dad. I've sent her the corrections but no update as yet. Discount Store News Markowitz (the late) was very accurate in his history of discount stores......look for 25th anniversay material circa 1987. His work was encyclopedic and Dad said very accurate. Thomas Geisse —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjgtjg (talkcontribs).

I removed Rowley's credit on the paragraph on John Geisse. Nothing in the paragraph now that isn't fact. Let me know if I can help you expand your history of retailing. Again the 1987-1988 DSN articles on the history of the discount store concept in America is far more accurate and insightful.

Thank you again from the Geisse family.

Hello again, what I do know about On Target is that Laura Rowley was citing from this article from the Chicago Tribune. Since I can only read the abstract, I don't know how she interpreted the context, but the factual information is most likely already in the DSN articles. When I have time to, I will expand on it and introduce additional citations. Regards, Tuxide 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Quaker StateEdit

...because the article as it was (2 lines of text, and one of them about nickname for Pennsylvania, and it remained like that since May) had no claim to notability whatsoever. Somebody else tagged it for speedy deletion and threatened to take it to AFD. If you can write a sourced article showing that it is notable and encyclopedia-worthy, go ahead. Renata 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow Brite editsEdit

I restored the good edits that Raw Cook Guy made to the Rainbow Brite article. It seemed suspicious that Tregoweth was reverting nearly all his edits, when they were good. I wasn't aware he's a sock puppet, however, even if a user is a known vandal, when there are positive edits why can't the admin leave them alone? Sure, still keep an eye on the person, but maybe he's trying to turn over a new leaf? Assume good faith? Kat, Queen of Typos 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the suspected and known sock puppets, I take it back. Holy cow. How does he keep getting around the bans?! Isn't his IP banned? Kat, Queen of Typos 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia WeekEdit

The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Wikipedia Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Check my talk page about the reflist template Rtcpenguin 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


RE: Gabriel's user page.

I had to laugh about your round about link to: Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

I got into this absurd conversation with a user when I tried to add that article to Reichstag


Thanks. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No ChristmasEdit

I am aware of your no-Christmas discussion, so please stop spamming. The Best Buy discussion is about the Best Buy article and I would rather not have the discussion move to a different talk page. If/when I want to get involved with your efforts, I will do so. Thank you. B2bomber81 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Glen's Anti-Vandalism Barnstar!
Glen is thrilled to award Tuxide with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in the art of troll extermination, ensuring Wikipedia is safe for public consumption, and for spotting the latest MascotGuy sock (now blocked)... You are a legend, please keep up the great work! Glen 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
PS; If you log onto IRC I'll approve you too ;)

Re: User talk:NationalistEdit

ArbCom has made it pretty clear that page blanking is OK [1]

He's read the messages, and if he's read them, doesn't matter if they stay or not; he's been warned. It isn't polite, but restoring blanked comments has been deemed harassment. By removing these comments, he isn't hampering/disrupting Wikipedia in any way. Anyways, the comments are in the history, and if there is anything vital, you can always move them to the RFC page, or add diffs there. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart#External linksEdit

Thanks. I've re-added the content template to the external links section. Personally, I agree that the link is not appropriate, most likely because it's not notable. The website, while it does target wal-mart, seems to be about other issues and not exclusively targeting wal-mart. Having the link on the wal-mart page is really contributing to their POV, which is against wiki policy, IMHO. Dr. Cash 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Talk:Fuzzy ZoellerEdit

Hello Tuxide. I noticed that you converted the hidden infoboxes on Talk:Fuzzy Zoeller to right-aligned box variants. I much prefer the hidden method, particularly on a page that receives heavy offsite traffic. This makes boxes that are relevant to casual editors more prominant (such as off topic warning and blp) by hiding the identically emphasized boxes relevant only to editors and tracking (WikiProjects, missing image tag, and media attention notes). The hidden infoboxes method reduces confusion, emphasizes important notices, and makes talk pages much more usable for both casual visitors and established editors.

What are your objections to the hidden infoboxes method? Perhaps we can adjust it. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for asking me this question. My reason was that I didn't think the hidden template was prominent enough due to the size of the box, and the number of people who view the article and do not already edit, or understand Wikipedia. I generally use hidden templates on to-do lists, although yours could probably be made more prominent if it is not as minimal as it was, such as the archive box on Talk:Wal-Mart. As for the high traffic implications, if it's server performace you are concerned about, I am not as per WP:PERF (besides the XHTML gets loaded anyways whether or not JavaScript is hiding it). I believe the off-topic warning is still emphasized because I made all of the others smaller. If you want, do the same to the blp template (but remove the instance of it from the WikiProject Biography one). If you have any questions or ideas, please let me know. Regards, Tuxide 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think localizing this method to individual templates (as is done on the to-do and archive templates) is scalable. On pages with many such templates, this forces a user who wants to scan through the information to click several '[show]' link consecutively. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to click a single '[show]' link, scan through the information, and hide it again. If prominence is a concern, we could make the box more so as shown at right.
information for editors
No information available.
My concern about high traffic is not performance, but user-friendliness. Particularly (though not only) when an article receives media attention, we should do our best to make the discussion page as simple, usable, and inviting to constructive comments as possible. The orange boxes are essentially warnings; they are designed specifically to attract attention and force viewers to read them before proceeding.
Given that, we do not want to intimidate a casual reader or editor by forcing them to read a full page (or two) of boxes written in Wikimedia jargon. The hidden infoboxes template is largely designed to provide easy access to information about the article for interested editors, while only displaying actual warnings and the information relevant to casual readers and editors by default. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:53:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your response. I like the bigger box; I would also suggest using a wordage to something more Slashdot/Digg-like to invite the casual reader can overwhelm himself if he wants to. For example:
Additional boilerplates below threshold
No information available.
Cheeers, Tuxide 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that wording introduces some terms that could be simplified. For example, 'boilerplate' is not a very common word outside editing circles, and 'threshold' suggests a level-based system that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. What do you think of the box at right?
more information for editors
No information available.
{admin} Pathoschild 23:00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the "for editors" thing that I'm not too big of a fan of, because it's not inviting enough. How about
more information
No information available.
Tuxide 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That version looks good. Do you object to re-adding that to Talk:Fuzzy Zoeller? —{admin} Pathoschild 23:16:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Department storesEdit

You may be right about the company type thing but that is not really anything I know about. I just edited those articles to revert a user that said that the company was defunct which is not a type of company that I'm aware of. Defunct is just an adjective that just says the current condition of the company. Nothing like that is necessary to describe what type of company it is. Gdo01 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Hahah, sorry, I can't believe I did that; thanks :D. Antman -- chat 23:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Helpful ReminderEdit

If you have any questions regarding Wikipedia standards please click on Help.--Memejojo 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Memejojo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


It shows that mature debates are easily resolved after a quick glance at the Help pages. Thank you and good luck--Memejojo 03:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Memejojo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


I highly suspect that "Memejojo" is the return of "Momoj". Do you have the ability to confirm this? B2bomber81 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See above, I referred this user to the Wikipedia help pages. Such a consultation is helpful for all users who wish to maintain good status in Wikipedia. In addition, I removed the so called welcome to Wikipedia icon from user Memejojo talk page. It slows download time and is redundant. If every user placed a welcome to Wikipedia icon on every other user's site the site would crawl --Memejojo 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In referrence to the post left by this user on user memejojo page. The edit was fully compliant with Wikipedia standards and will stand. Any further discussion should perhaps take place offline. Please see earlier post for the exact reasoning for the minor edit. Any further discussion should take place on this page. Any subsequent posts on other user's site will be considered vandalism. Again please take time to read the Wikipedia help pages. Thanks and good luck --Memejojo 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Memejojo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


I am imposing a 24 hour cooling off period that refrains you from further making inflamatory and biased remarks directed toward other wikipedia users. It is not in the community nor your best interests to continue making accusations and stirring up trouble with other users. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Memejojo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Millard North High SchoolEdit

I think a school can't be filmed but a movie. Also, I don't see any problem with the article's point of view. If you do think its neutrality is disputed, feel free to add a tag there and discuss it on its talk page. - Microtony 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Skutt lawsuitEdit

I removed the text because relative to the school itself, it's not notable compared to other things (principals, state championships, etc.) Within Wikipedia, the Skutt lawsuit was notable enough to write an article about. Outside Wikipedia, it's a relatively minor thing. For example, a year or two back, my high school threatened to sue a group of restaurant workers who trespassed on school property to play a game of pick-up football. It made the news, and the lawsuit was dropped. Sure, it made the news, and it was a big thing for the people involved. But I guarantee you that if I polled 500 people in my town on whether they remember the incident, I wouldn't find 10 who would. It appears to be the same thing here- something that might be worth mentioning in an article specifically about Wikipedia-related lawsuits- but one that surely has no bearing on the history of the school itself, and that if you polled people in that area, they wouldn't remember the incident either. Ral315 » 11:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey there, just wanted to let you know that I joined WikiProject Retailing. I started the Store manager article a while ago and just gave it a major overhaul. I think it's an important topic. Thanks for starting this WikiProject and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. JakeB 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Didn't know about about images of superman that were in the public domain. Thanks for the info. - Peregrine Fisher 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:AWB / referencesEdit

I'm aware that capitalisation of reference names is corrected, and since they aren't displayed on the page markup this maybe isn't necessary, but all occurrences of the reference name will be changed the same way, so the references will never be broken. Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Damn I hate that templateEdit

Thanks! Though it's funny, I'm not a big fan of the 'small=yes' parameter,... I think it reduces many of the boxes too much and makes them harder to read. I do like the ArticleHistory & WikiProjectBanners templates, though. I guess it's just personal preferences.

It is good to see the Criticism of Wal-Mart article at GA status. Maybe Wal-Mart won't be far behind,... ;-) Dr. Cash 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Or Target! J.reed 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Metropolitan Statistical Area. They are just adding kilobytes to the store locator pages (see Dillard's as a massive example), and I hate them with a passion -- they also make it VERY confusing for adding other locations to the list.TenPoundHammer 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the one who made the addition to my user page I suppose I'd leave a comment here for you instead of just your friends site where I found a lively discussion concerning me. Very interesting discussion you two are having about me here. Yes I do know Memjojo. He is my brother so no I am not a sockpuppet of him so you may relax. I am solely responsible for the edit to the Best Buy page that you seem concerned about. The article is well vetted and sourced so I'm afraid the two of you will have to live with reality. I for one think it's very childish of you and others who attempt to harrass other users. My take on your treatement of Memejojo and others is that I'm a bit confused since Memejojo's contributions still stand as well as my contributions. So full disclosure is done. Case closed.


Must've reverted to the wrong one. Sorry about that! Dr. Cash 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting of directoriesEdit

I do appreciate that you want to settle this amicably; certainly I've been in your position as the Chuck Cunningham Syndrome AFD demonstrates.

What you did in Target Corporation would work, and works because it's not a directory. You wrote (or are writing) a detailed history, telling us when the company opened stores where, that could almost be spun off as a separate article. That is what we are supposed to do. That is the Wikipedia way. If the project did that in the other articles, rather than just write lists, I would consider the information presented in encyclopedic fashion. It's harder to write, I'll admit, but it's better for the reader and the encyclopedia, and looking over your work it seems you are up to the challenge.

BTW, I came into this little dispute when I tagged the Barneys talk page for the new fashion project, and since we overlap with you on a number of important articles I wonder if you could put something in the project talk page or your newsletter about fashion if anyone's interested in that, even if to work on the articles about clothing retailers (which would be a big help to us). Daniel Case 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Chuck CunninghamEdit

Well, if the article hadn't been deleted, I wouldn't have needed to explain this :-)...

In greatly condensed form, the relevant info is here. It refers to the tendency, on some TV shows, comic strips, for characters to abruptly disappear from the series without explanation or allusion by the other characters in subequent episodes due to changes of heart by the writers, producers or actors involved, sometimes with the show's background changed to suggest they never could have existed (later seasons of Happy Days suggested and even stated that Richie was the oldest Cunningham child). There are variants like "Reverse Chuck Cunningham" (sudden appearance of characters who the other regulars treat as if they were always there) or "Lazarus Cunningham" (character who previously disappeared a la Chuck Cunningham is suddenly restored by writers and/or actor with everyone acting like his/her absence, even if explained, was no big deal. Zara Cully is mysteriously absent (well, not mysteriously, she was very sick in real life) from most of the third season of The Jeffersons. This could have easily been explained, except there is scant reference to her, very odd considering she was still credited as a series regular and that she'd been in many episodes in the first seasons. She suddenly returns with a month left, in a wheelchair, and no one seems to note that we hadn't seen her in a long time).

I felt, as did the others, that this was a legitimate phenomenon. But we couldn't prove that the term had acquired notability outside of Wikipedia. Nor could we overcome the claim that these articles were vulnerable to crufty insertions and thus inherently detrimental to project standards (people were putting in characters a mere episode or two after any inexplicable disappearance). I created breakout character as a compromise from another one of those contemporary deletions, "Fonzie syndrome" (character intended to be a small role takes over the series), and now I can see what they mean ... I'm going to have to live up to my promise on the talk page and clear out a lot of crufty, unreferenced additions to that page. Daniel Case 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

fwarn templateEdit

Hi, Tuxide. There's a discussion about deleteing the fwarn template, going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Non-admin fwarn. You have a related template in userspace at User:Tuxide/Sandbox/non-admin fwarn custom. Assuming the outcome of that TFD is to delete, would you be willing to {{db-user}} your template? Other users who are using your template probably won't know about the outcome, and if it's best not to use the generic fwarn template, the custom version has the same issues. coelacan — 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to List of McDonald's LocationsEdit

Comment I think you failed to grasp the last part of that sentence: "In China". It doesn't say "In the United States". The reason the "In China" article would be acceptable is that are only 45 Wal Mart stores in China. By comparison, there are 2,285 Wal Mart Supercenters in the United States (as well as over 1,000 discount stores). The "In China" article could be acceptable because Wal-Mart is considered an international company there, and thus notable as a successful American company trying to make the cross over. An article that listed United States locations would be a directory (and deleted as such) because this is the English Wikipedia. Comparatively, an article on List of McDonald's locations would be deleted as a directory because Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Someone in the United States reading a list of "Wal Marts in China" probably does not have the capacity to visit one or look in the phone book for information. Conversely, someone in the United States looking for a McDonald's could look in a phone book. And there lies the difference. If you can find it in your phone book, it's directory matieral and thus falls into WP:NOT. A list of Wal Marts in China, is not phone book material (for the most part) for someone using the English Wikipedia. As it relates to this article, all the information contained in this list could be found in a phone book. It is also directory material and should be deleted as such. --Cyrus Andiron 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

your report at Wikiquette alertsEdit

Hi. I posted a reply to your report at Wikiquette alerts. There wasn't much I could offer for helping with the sarcastic editor commenting on your disussions, sometimes unless it gets worse we have to just let that kind of stuff go by.

But I wanted to write a note here because after reviewing the two AfD pages, it really seems to me that they should not be closed separately by two different administrators who might not see the full range of discussions on the two pages. You don't have all of the same editors commenting on both articles.

Since I came there through your report at Wikiquette alerts, I don't think it would be right for me to post an opinion on the AfD's, but I wanted to suggest that before the closing date of those discussions you try to contact an administrator who knows more about those procedures than I do (I am not an administrator byt the way). There may be a procedure for "bundling" the AfD's together so it's easier to get the big picture. Otherwise, one administrator might see a consensus on one of those pages while on the other page, maybe not.

Bundling like that can be done in advance (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion), but I don't know how it works if the discussions have already been started.

I think if I were in your position, I would post a request for assistance with this issue on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Since the administrators are busy and moving fast, I'd keep the request short. I would not mention the incivility issue at all, just the overlapping of the two related AfD's, requesting that they be closed by one administrator together, or ask if there is a way to combine the discussions.

Of course, it could be risky. If you keep them separate you might win one and lose one. If you combine them, the consensus would affect both of them. So that's your decision to make. If you do want to combine the discussions, getting advice or help from an administrator would probably be a good way to go. Just make sure to be clear your request is not "partisan" it's just that you want a fair hearing for the subject.

Also - I need to make a disclaimer - this is not "formal" advice at all. I don't have special knowledge or powers.... I'm just another regular editor who stopped by to offer some ideas. Good luck! --Parzival418 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi - thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, much appreciated.

I have no direct dispute with that user, but he didn't like it when I tried to help out at the article he was disrupting, that was listed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University.

Anyway, no worries, he'll fade away after a while - hopefully sooner than later.

Thanks again and good luck with your AfD to keep those location list articles. --Parzival418 00:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Got your note about the lists issue. Just wanted to mention, if the articles are deleted the history might disappear too. So if you are planning to use those lists in your main articles, I suggest you copy them onto sub-pages in your user space. That way you'll have safe backup versions and won't lose all that work. --Parzival418 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:TasksEdit

Wow, that was fast! The change was only live for...15-20 minutes?...when you posted that. Well, hopefully others will find it useful as well. Thanks for the message! -- Huntster T@C 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL licenseEdit

Can you delete a contribution from a user when this user has released it under the GFDL? I think you can help to modified or improve it, I am curious, also If I did add "content" to the user page, I not sure about it but was unintentionally, I was aiming for the Talk page, I hope this is your talk page if is not I am blind and you need to tell me how to access it. Although, and curiously user: Parzival418 has obscured the discussion over a very controversial entry, while not contributing of even to take time to observe the interactions or the "players" or respecting the GFDL I think, I do not know.

I know that your are working in a Project in retailing or malls and may be you are more familiar with this discussions, but my aim is to bring neutrality, the fact is that many marketers are using Wikipedia to "Bot-out" links into Google, and many people could be misleading with the information "distilled" in our pages.

Therefore, I hope you have something to respond and I hope I learn well and this is the place to leave you messages, i.e. the talk page. Although here my intention is learning how are you applying the many clauses stipulated in the GFDL and GPL documentation, I hope this aim is not confuse with vandalism or harassment, my purpose is to build a much stronger, rich and updated verifiable content. Well thank you with anticipation for your response in this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codeplowed (talkcontribs) 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC). -Veritas Longa 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The GapEdit

Actually, what should be done is to have an article on the company and an article on the stores themselves (as The Gap has more than one chain). Daniel Case 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Navy, for one. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fry'sEdit

Okay, I see your point. But it is still kind of irritating that no one caught that error for several days. I tend to take it personally when people delete citations I have inserted and sometimes I forget the AGF policy! --Coolcaesar 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfAEdit

Just dropping you a line to inform you of my request for adminship. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: dillard'sEdit

I didn't see any proof of copywrite infringement. A concern such as this should first be discussed on the appropriate discussion page.


Tuxide, please stop using your damn bot to screw up webpages. It's vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl42 (talkcontribs)

RE: VandalismEdit

You BRAG about botting to protect pages from vandalism, so I find it highly unlikely that you are not using a bot on the article on Planeshift. Like what was said before, you have turned the article into an advertisment for Planeshift in violation of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl42 (talkcontribs)

Defamatory? Give me a break. References to reviews is not defamatory. Face it, there are a lot of bad reviews of the game. Its community, dev team, and GMs don't have a great reputation on the net. And don't talk about notability. If notability was truly being respected, the article wouldn't be half as long as it is. You're deleting the new material because you want to make the article as positive as possible. That makes it an advert, which means it should be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl42 (talkcontribs)

deleted templateEdit

I've restored it, Jimfbleak 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

done Jimfbleak 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject CompaniesEdit

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know about this recently established project with similar goals/aims to WikiProject Retaliing but with the larger scope of all company articles, and to say I hope we can work together going forward. I've noted that you've done some great work on establishing style guidelines, something our project is looking into right now. My goal is to come up with a core set of guidelines for all company articles, with industry variations as appropriate. I'll add you to our page as a related project, and hope you will consider doing the same for ours. Any questions or concerns just drop me a line. Cheers! Richc80 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Image:Converted richway.jpgEdit

I have moved the image to the Commons -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello my love.Edit

I'm writing you to inform you that there is someone else. Also, explain your rationale, I read the interview, I don't see how it is a good source as it is just an interview. Maybe the article needs a good neutral editor. You like the game, I hate the game, our forces combined, we're still not neutral. SpigotMap 11:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PlaneShift AFDEdit

JoshuaZ reclosed it, thanks for letting me know. I didn't see the section break for some reason. --Coredesat 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Great news! The League of Copyeditors gave the article a good copyedit, cleaning up quite a bit of information. I think it might actually be close to WP:FA, so it might be worth giving it another run. I think I've pretty much fixed up most, if not all, of the issues from the previous FAC, as well. Except for the WP:MSH problems in the subsidiaries section; but I think in this case, it's acceptable for those headers since we're using the actual names of the subsidiaries. Dr. Cash 06:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon Planeshift EditsEdit

So you're saying that anon editor is not continually removing the primary sources tag from the article? SpigotMap 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one diff, there are a few others on the range of IPs this editor uses. [2]

SpigotMap 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tuxide. I just had a chance to look over the sources you added to the Planeshift article. I'm not meaning to be picky or anything, but I still see the removal of the primary-sources tag a little unjustified. You know as well as I that an interview is still a primary source, so that leaves what? I haven't looked at the Spanish PDF source, so I don't know what it looks like. Is it more then just a mention in a magazine? SpigotMap 12:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart's FACEdit

Well, I dunno what to make of the current FAC nomination for Wal-Mart. I thought that initially, it was going pretty well. But now, I dunno -- the recent comments posted by Tony1 make me think that this article will NEVER make FAC, EVER. Basically, despite having two separate members of the League of Copyeditors, as well as myself, and SandyGeorgia's comments, and others, the article STILL needs a "thorough run-through". WTF? For somebody that has almost a dozen peer-reviewed, scientific publications to my credit, you'd think a wikipedia FA ought to be a lot easier, but I dunno ... maybe the folks at WP:FAC are just too damn picky!

If you could take a look at the article, and see if you can address some of the concerns, I'd appreciate it. I'm not so sure I would do so much good at this point, since I think it really needs another set of eyes on it. Thanks! Dr. Cash 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

James WatsonEdit

I would appreciate your co-operation with regards to improving the James Watson article, and the stubborn refusal of Landerman to allow edits of the topic until he see's fit. Thankyou.--Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PlaneShift (video game)Edit

You are right, I missed his edit summary totally and went triggerhappy on the revert button. I fixed my error and reverted myself. I think I am going to grab a cup of coffee because I made 2 mistakes in the last 15 minutes. Thanks for the heads up :) FelisLeoTalk! 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

hi & questionEdit

Hi Tuxide,

I'm a graduate student at Cornell University who's interested in studying how editors collaborate on Wikipedia. I noticed that you were an active editor on the Target article and I was hoping that you might be willing to talk to me briefly about your involvement there. Send me an e-mail if you're interested or if you have any questions. Jthomsant (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Target CorporationEdit

I've restored the removal of the unnecessary nesting. The "Target Stores" section does not need to be nested under the "Subsidiaries" section. Instead, "Target Stores, Inc." can just be mentioned there. The current "Target Stores" section primarily introduces the various types of store formats. Also, there is no reason for for the "Differentiation" sections to be nested four layers deep. It's really a bit beyond ridiculous. Please consider discussing before undoing good faith edits.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:PlaneShift (video game)Edit

You got your own "attack section" because you choose to act as a biased partisan of PS[3] to the point of threatening what amounts to blackmail[4] and otherwise trolling in the channel you referenced (and, when banned, in associated unmoderated channels), but fail to admit that while you defend it in Wikipedia[5]. I do not know who EvanCarrol is. Given the fact that I've been an active member who's produced fairly significant contributions over the last year, I feel confident say that he has no status within the project (regardless of "having voice" in #peragro). So, in effect, you're using the kindergarten argument of "he did it first" comparing your actions as a "non-member of PS" to those of a non-member of PT... As to the link you supplied saying "read the links," great- you found some random forum on the internet where people mistake PT for a fork of PS. Given the number of times the PS staff has accused PT of being a fork, that's not particularly surprising or meaningful. It does mean they've probably not ever talked to anyone from PT. In short; you got a comment on the planeshift talk page[6], to which you ever so eloquently retorted[7], mostly for being a jerk even after you were asked to stop. Also, because once you brought it to my attention that you were acting as a partisan in the same argument elsewhere on the internet, because it does rather irk me that you're bringing your POV unannounced into wikipedia. Which, by the by, is a problem I'd have with EvanCarrol if I ever encountered him. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locationsEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locations, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Edit

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Case was never notable, and was dismissed two years ago without any effect on anything.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Edit

I have nominated Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Edit

I have nominated EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/NoticeboardEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of PlaneShift (video game)Edit

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is PlaneShift (video game). 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/PlaneShift (video game). 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) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a ReviewerEdit

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) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John GeisseEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on John Geisse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/ArticlesEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Tuxide. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removedEdit

Hello Tuxide! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MusikBot II talk 20:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Tuxide. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Tuxide".