Zgoutreach

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dolores Cannon.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Manway 22:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see the article has been accepted! find it, and contribute to it at: Dolores Cannon Zgoutreach (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Images

Hi Brian, I almost missed your message, because it was not at the very bottom and you did not add a heading. However I eventually noticed it an hour later. To find out about adding images, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. The kind of picture we would like to see is a photo you took of the author. Since the article is not about a book, then non free images of the book are not appropriate. You can also ask at WP:FFU if you cannot upload, but you should be WP:autoconfirmed by now so that you can see an upload link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Dolores Cannon-Stock Photo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dolores Cannon-Stock Photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. January (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

you did not take this photo did you? A stock photo is pretty unlikely to be public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

i removed it, and i'll await Dolores' approval before posting :) (Zgoutreach (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

List of modern channelled texts

Wanted to thank you for your great recent work on that list. A really helpful overview. I hope your edits will survive in the longer perspective and won't be ravaged by deletionists and scientific skeptics. -- Nazar (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Geoffrey Hoppe. Supposedly a friend of Lee Carroll and a channel as well. Haven't yet studied his messages though. -- Nazar (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words! I have a made a short list of further channels to add to the page, including Geoffrey Hoppe who channels Tobias! He was featured in the movie Tuning In. There is so much great wisdom from all these channels, since editing this page I've ordered a few more books to read! I want to read at least one book from each medium.

Hopefully people will find the Timeline useful, so people can choose modern vs. older channel messages to research, plus also a list of mediums listed by number of books published is useful for those looking for sucessful series of books. And of course an alphabetically listing of entities is a great way to sort them too.

I know many of the lists are redundant, but gives people more ways of searching/discovering more channels! :) (Zgoutreach (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good post about experiments anyone with a computer can do to verify that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for comment

As the subject seems to be of your interest, and you are an experienced editor, you are invited to this, as yet, non-consensual and critical talk. Excalibursword (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your fairness. Wikipedia needs more moderators like you.

Thank you for your fairness. Wikipedia needs more moderators like you. On my talk page 13 June 2012, Bearian wrote as someone who is probably voting for Obama, by threatening to ban me for "vandalism" after I simply added a main stream news sourced article about Sheriff Arpaio's investigation.
You wisely wrote in response regarding Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories:
I checked the Talk page history, and didn't see any vandalism at all, didn't even see Inetcafecooth6 remove anything from the talk page in June. Could you please me more specific as to which day this occured on the talk page? Thank you, (Zgoutreach (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

I can see that you are in a big struggle just to update an article with properly referenced unbiased edits. It appears those who do not like what they are seeing are acusing you of violating something or other. However, I am NOT a moderator, infact I'm new here on wikipedia. Hopefully there are moderators higher up who can take an objective approach to your situation.

I do not know of the evidence presented towards your sock puppetry accusation, but I hope they had some - seeing as how you were blocked for 2 weeks. If they didn't have enough, or any evidence, it is very unfair.

I will look into your latest battle to see if I can make some comments based on who I think is being fair, if you wish.

Best of luck, Zgoutreach (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Fair and balanced. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please check my talk page at the following link, and please leave a comment about what you think of Bearian's "Final Warning" alleging that I was "disruptive" or "vandalizing" on my own My Talk page. I respect your opinion and will follow your recommendation. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inetcafebooth6&pe=1&#Your_tone...._again
Thank you University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "Zgoutreach", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, institution, company or website. Please note that Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or appear to be shared by multiple people. Please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. CityOfSilver 20:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see your concern. For the record i'm not actively involved with the Zeitgeist Media Festival, or the Zeitgeist Movement in any form. In fact I just found out about it today, 20 days after the event, while surfing youtube. The content I contributed was added with proper citations to 3rd party mainstream articles.

You can checkout the website I support here: http://www.wheelznorth.com/ to find out more about Zero Gravity Outreach. Peace be with you. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RE. The Zeitgeist Movement

Please note that there have been extensive discussions regarding this article, and there is a clear consensus that it will not be used to provide a platform for TZM supporters to promote their movement based on material from their own websites etc.

I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Username policy. If you are going to edit TZM-related articles, you would be well advised to change your username to one which did not suggest that you are promoting TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I had no idea this article was so heaviliy guarded compared to other articles. I have updated many other articles and only recently have thought of making this page current, and assumed this page would also be welcoming of 3rd party referenced material. The 2012 Medial Fesitival was added after I just stumbled upon reading about it, so I added this with references to 3 seperate articles in HollywoodToday.net. This was immediately deleted, even though it was referenced, perhaps WP views this as an unreliable source? If more sources are required, please add a citation asking for more sources before deleting. Thank you. I shall bring this up in the talk page on the article. My apologies if HollywoodToday.net is unreliable. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that before you do that you read Wikipedia:Username policy: "users who both adopt a promotional username and also engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

After adding this discussion to the talk page, I see that you have been accused of Vandalism in the past, on July 31:

You deleted over 11,000 characters and here is what you replaced the article with "The Zeitgeist Movement is a deranged utopian cult that spends most of its time trying to edit the Wikipedia article about it in order to convince people that its membership consists of more than two men and a dog. Sadly, they once persuaded someone to write a blog in the Huffington post which repeated their bullshit, along with a few other minor journalists with nothing better to write about. They are incapable of explaining their ideas in English, which probably explains why they still get the occasional mention from low-grade journalists trying to fill an empty paragraph or two - if anyone actually understood what they were saying they would realise what a bunch of vacuous imbeciles they are. They seem to think that you can completely remodel the entire global economic system by spouting incomprehensible jargon, and inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories to explan why nobody is taking any notice. They have about as much chance of affecting world events as an ant does of stopping a forest fire by trying to stamp it out. The two men should get a life, and the dog should find a new owner." it is signed and dated: AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)"

As someone who has vandalized the page in the past, I hope this is not influencing your decisions today, AndyTheGrump Thank you for the suggestion you posted regarding username. I shall take that under advisement if you desire. Zgoutreach (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope - my actions are driven by the multiple previous attempts by semi-literate TZM supporters to use Wikipedia to promote their 'movement'. Personally, I think my comments, though ill-advised, were actually a better representation of what TZM is than the ridiculous puffery they use to describe themselves. I see that you claim above to have only discovered TZM yesterday. If so, perhaps you should do a little more research before leaping in to fill our article with their hype and bullshit. You will note that they claim to have run a 'global' media festival, but the sole external source anyone has found refers to one in Hollywood (and it is a lousy source at that). This sort of unverifiable self-promotion is entirely the norm for TZM, and doesn't remotely belong on Wikipedia. They have plenty of websites of their own... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"my actions are driven by the multiple previous attempts by semi-literate TZM supporters" it appears you admit to letting past experiences interfere with your neutrality.

previously you stated on July 31, 2012: "The Zeitgeist Movement is a deranged utopian cult" and "its membership consists of more than two men and a dog." which is harldy accurate or neutral, and you back this statement today by saying: "Personally, I think my comments, though ill-advised, were actually a better representation of what TZM is".

Your reverts of the Zeitgeist Movement page are ungrounded, bordering edit-warring. You last last revert for example does not make sense. You made the comment: "that is NOT an external link" and you deleted an external link (ie. www.zeitgeistmediaproject.com. Any link that directs someone outside of wikipedia is External. Links within wikipedia are Internal. I see many other examples where you revert perfectly sourced and reliable material.

Please note that your past experiences of vandalism, edit-warring/improper reverting, and admitted aggrivation from editors will not got unnoticed.

Further to the point, as for the reliable source, as you know from the talk page, the Zeitgeist Media Festival, is also found on other sources such as RT TV. Further it is found on Google News. Whether or not you condisder a news report as "promoting" a movement is irrelevant. Please review, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you must put your disagreement aside in wikipedia and allow the facts to be presented, even if you believe it will "promote" an organization you don't like or that you believe is a "deranged utopian cult".

Please do not delete reliably sourced material, AndyTheGrump, and request for further sources before deleting. Zgoutreach (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find any reliably-sourced material, post a link to it on the article talk page, where we can discuss whether any of it is of relevance to the article. Not that though being reliably sourced is necessary for inclusion, it does not follow that everything that can be sourced must be included - and as I've already pointed out there are other issues - notably weight. Anyway, this is a topic for discussion on the article talk page, not here.

Incidentally, and changing the subject slightly, I see that you are involved with (or at least a supporter of) 'Zero Gravity Outreach', an organisation that identifies itself as 'Christ centered'. [1] How do you reconcile that with promoting TZM, an organisation witch promotes anti-religious views of a fairly extreme kind? [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Andy!! :) Thank you for the questions, and yes the topic IS more apporpriate on the article talk page, I was going to mention that as well. First of all, a) I never said I just discovered TZM yesturday, I said I just discovered ZMF today while browsing youtube. I occaisonally watch their videos just to stretch my points of view! b) although I understand the first movie Zeitgeist, is anti-religious, I've come to understand that this movie is not associated with the movement. Even Addendum and Moving forward, Joesph says, are not associated with the movement (as per his youtube interviews), but especially the first film is not reflective on the movement (just a bunch of conspiracies and anti-christianity). The true representation of TZM, i'm told is located in the Orientation Presentation (either PDF, or youtube video slideshow presentation) where it goes actually into what the movement is about. c) I don't promote TZM, there is a difference with reporting and promoting. I have no nice words to say to support the movement, but I do not support their unfair public perceptoin. I'm a strong believer in all faiths, religions, movements focusing on commonalities, not differences, and coming together. In this way, we can see how much we all actually have in common with one another! :) I believe every religion, at it's core, has the same positive core beliefs about serving others, and loving others [at it's core, not always at the surface].

So yes, i do see how you could view TZM as anit-religious, (if you associated the 2007 movie with the movement), but I've come to hear that they are tolerant of all peoples, and I don't recal Peter, or the movement ever not allowing christ-followers to any religion for that matter to join. Great to hear from ya, and talk to ya later! PEACE :) Zgoutreach (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "For the record i'm not actively involved with the Zeitgeist Media Festival, or the Zeitgeist Movement in any form. In fact I just found out about it today". Maybe the 'it' in there is a little misleading, or at least open to misinterpretation. Still, whatever - if you are happy promoting TZM (which is what you are doing when you take their word as fact) in spite of the contradictions, you are fully entitled to - just not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Does editing an article imply promotion? Does this mean you promote British Jews and Penis's and Facesitting? (okay, that was funny, sorry! but you get my point ;) Thank you for taking the time to get these issues settled. I enjoy our conversation, and I'm glad we are close to seeing eye-to-eye! May you have a wonderful day, Monsieur LeGrump! :) Love ya bro. Zgoutreach (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Does editing an article imply promotion? Yes, if it is edited the way you did it. As for (a) British Jews, some of my best friends are... (b) Penis's - mine needs no promotion, and (c) Facesitting - I'll not comment ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's is a section of the supposed "non-neutral article" that I wanted to see included: "The Zeitgeist Media Festival, (ZMF), is a gobal celebration first started in 2011, with the main event held in Los Angeles, California. The Festival consisted of live music, comedy, and performance art. In 2012, the ZMF also introduced short films through online submissions" The global Zeitgeist Media Fesitival official website is ZeitgeistMediaFestival.org."

Now I know everyone has their own personal subjective viewpoints, but in your expert editing experience would you rate this A) 100% promotional, B) 100% reporting, or C) name your own percentage of either or. (BTW, nice comeback in that last response you made! very nice! ;) Zgoutreach (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page, not here - but before you post there, I suggest you think of a good explanation for why you made so much effort to try to make two sources look like eight. I'm sure I'll ask ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How can two sources look like 8? Please explain. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zgoutreach, enjoyed reading all your contributions above. Keep up the civility, please. From browsing the zeitgeist article: the Z media festival is also mentioned a couple of times in the RT television interview here, which is a reliable source. (The media festival is also covered in www.examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-media-festival-challenges-the-world-to-be-positive -- probably not a reliable source ...) Furthermore, towards the end of the RT interview, the TV screen is full of screen shots from the official website of the Z media festival. and thank you for your efforts to improve the wikipedia article on zeitgeist despite stiff resistance from the usual bunch of self-appointed guardians of the status quo. best wishes, WinterWithFools (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The media festival is also mentioned in the Z blog post from the Z uruguay team: [3]. Best wishes, WinterWithFools (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Z blog and other TZM websites can only be used as sources under very limited circumstances - see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFSOURCE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Page in your userspace

Hi Zgoutreach. I'm one of the (many) Wikipedia admins. I'm a bit concerned about one of your userpages User:Zgoutreach/Conversations with God messages as it is a copyright violation. Wikipedia does not permit such a large amount of copyrighted material from one source to be used on any of its pages, and I'm going to have to delete the page. Sorry about that.

If you want to write an article, you will need to use your own words. You would also need to include references to third party commentary on the content, to show notability for the topic. I can see that you're already editing Conversations with God - might not it be better to expand the message section in that article? I am not sure that other editors would agree that the contents of the book require a separate article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elen. Thank you for your input. This page was only a draft, and was no where near close to being submitted. I have not added the necessary third party references yet. I have 3rd party books and reliable news articles to add with their commentary, plus I intended to trim down the article severly to reduce the amount of quotes. Since it was only a userspace, I didn't think there was a time limit to complete the article. Zgoutreach (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I intended to add "Plot", "Theme", "Development", "Acheivements", and "Reception" much like any other book review on wikipedia. There were only about 4-5 properly references quotes per book used as a placeholder so that plot and theme could be properly written about. This was a work in progress, never-submitted draft, that was suddenly deleted without warning. At the top of the page it said: "There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft." I was taking this advice to heart, and writing at my own pace, in fact I barely even started writing the article content. What is the process to go about getting this draft restored so I can fix it.

I had no idea a draft article would be reviewed BEFORE submission. Please let me know who I can contact to restore and continue making the draft up to wikipedia standards, and so that I can continue making the article in compliance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations. Thank you, Elen Zgoutreach (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zgoutreach. It's not a matter of 'submission'. All Wikipedia pages are publically visible, and the problem is putting that much text from a single copyright source anywhere on Wikipedia - it breaches our policies. The same policies, for example, also prevent non-free images being placed on userpages. You are welcome to restart the draft - I have no opinion as to whether it could make a standalone article - but as I said, it needs have much less directly quoted content. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the blindingly-obvious connection between the 'Zeitgeist Movement' founded by Peter Joseph and the documentary film 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' by Peter Joseph

Prior to your attempt to rewrite history on behalf of TZM, the article stated that 'Zeitgeist: The Movie" was the original 2007 film that helped inspire the movement". The Huffington Post blog that everyone insists is WP:RS for the article states clearly that "The movement's founder, Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film sensation, Zeitgeist, and it's 2008 successor, Zeitgeist: Addendum. While many people may find it hard to digest the idea of a world without currency, Joseph's argument that our economic system is the source of our greatest social problems was supported with valuable evidence". This argument is precisely that of TZM. Other sources have also made the obvious connection, as you must be well aware - I fail to see how ii could be argued otherwise. It is utterly ridiculous to claim, as you did in your edit summary, that "the zeitgeist movement has NO connection to the 2007 movie 'Zeitgeist'" [4]. Without the film, it is clear that nobody would have even heard of PJ. I suggest you self-revert, and then discuss your ridiculous assertion on the article talk page, as WP:BRD requires. The article is Wikipedia's and isn't a forum for supporters of TZM to engage in historical revisionism. Should you fail to self-revert, I will consider what action to take next. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you do that, I suggest you read TZM's own FAQ: [5]

While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

If you think that doesn't justify a statement that the movie 'helped inspire' TZM, I suggest you learn to read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss on article's talk page. If you wish to change your citation to another one, be bold - feel free. Thank you kindly sir. Zgoutreach (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss - I have cited the TZM FAQ as well, though the Huff Post blog is perfectly adequate as a reference anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is nothing to discuss, please stop doing so on my talkpage instead of the article talk page. I thank you in advance for any proper sourcing you may do. Thank you Zgoutreach (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the addition of the FAQ as a source, with an edit summary of To quote "AndyTheGrump": "revert unencyclopeadic puffery sourced to TZM" aka not a reliable source. [6]. Can I take it from this you are going to remove the other material cited to the FAQ, which states that TZM split with the Venus Project etc? I suggest you do this - in which case I will delete the claim entirely, as unsouced, or restore the FAQ citation - it is perfectly reasonable to cite TZM for a simple statement regarding something as blindingly obvious as the connection between PJ's movies and the movement. And take this as a warning - any more attempts to rewrite history on behalf of TZM from you will be reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For the final time, please discuss the article on the talk page. If you feel as though "TZM's official website" is a WP:RS, then you will notice there is already discussion about this in the articles archives. On the talk page you can discuss if this primary source can be used as you insist it should be. Thank you, kindly sir. Zgoutreach (talk

I told you to discuss this on the talk page, as WP:BRD requires, an hour ago - what is stopping you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You have already said "There is nothing to discuss," if you would like to change your mind, feel free to start a new talk thread on the articles talk page. I thank you to stop discussing the article here. Thank you kindly. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you are being such an obstructive jerk, I will raise the sources at WP:RSN, and get outside input. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Please be civil. I thank you for bettering wikipedia by raising sources at RSN first. And since you continue to talk here after my repeated requests to use the articles talk page, I have decided to start a talk article thread for you. I thank you if all further communications be done in that article's talk thread. Thank you once again. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Zeitgeist: The Movie, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Feel free to re-add that material if you can accompany it with a citation. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. The fact that Zeitgeist is a trilogy is, as of this week, an observable fact, and frankly quite trivial. If this fact is questionable/disputed as it apparently is, I have many primary sources I can reference to if desired/allowed. Your claim that this is original research is false, and I'd like to hear your reasoning as to my receiving such an accusation on my talk page; lack of sourcing does not necessarily equate to original research, and would love to hear why you think it is 'OR'. I kindly request that you add an inline citation request for your concerns of the articles information before the easy way of automatic reverting, especially for such trivial concerns (ie. whether a film series is a triology or not).

I thank you for your co-operation in considering inline citation requests next time, and taking article issues up on the articles talk page, not my user page. Thank you and best of luck, Nightscream. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dolores Cannon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dolores Cannon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Cannon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 17:34, 3 October 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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zgoutreach. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zgoutreach. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)