User talk:Cityside189

my shortcuts

Visit the Teahouse

P. intergrifolia

SO article

Cityside189, you are invited to the Teahouse!

| style="margin: 2em 4em;" |- valign="top" |

|

Hi Cityside189! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

|}

uh oh

user:risker, I was at the tea house yesterday and saw a new user, Glacial Frost, and reached out a hand of welcome. His reply to me was strangely reminiscent of how EOaTW used to write, like deleting my reply off the tea house, being in a hurry to get stickers and wanting to "advance quickly". So I started following his contributions and saw he deleted things off his co-op talk page, and then I saw this last night: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=675862397. I felt some duty to inform you. Cityside189 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside, I just added a fair bit of behavioral evidence to the SPI report. No question: this is a TEoATW sock. --Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Dr. Margi. I'm finding Wikipedia very interesting and stimulating. I have to admit, some of my contributions lately are not easy, but there's a real sense of accomplishment to participate here. Thanks for your user page too, I will go to it often because it's set up so wonderfully and easy to link to different things. Cityside189 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Relax it, stay away from TEoATW and his socks, and you'll have a good experience! --Drmargi (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes... good advice user:drmargi. I think you're right about Glacial Frost and I do have more data if you ever need it. Not to be secretive, but I would prefer to e-mail it to you so that it can't be used to further inform the person about their tells. But in the bigger picture, just like in the real world, this place ain't perfect, so might as well try and get along and make the best of it. I learned here about WP:ROPE and maybe over time the truth will come out anyway. Since I left that note on his talk page, (which came from the Tea house), I was sure that I would be implicated or suspected in something down the line, so I wanted to get ahead of it and make sure I was being as transparent as possible. Well thanks again... it sure is an interesting place, and overall I still think it's a fun project to be part of. I'm staying for now. Cityside189 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about me, the investigation ruled me not be be a sock. I understand if you are still uneasy because it seems like the editor did a number on everyone here. Let me know if you are still uncomfortable around me nd Ill leave you alone but otherwise see ya around. GlacialFrost (Talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

THANKS for your info regarding The Nightowls page.

Thank you Cityside189 for getting back to me on The NightOwls page. Thanks for the help & suggestions - I'm new to the world of Wikipedia - there is so much guidance & explanation of all the terminology - it came be overwhelming & difficult to negogiate. I will definitely make use of the Teahouse - thanks for the info. Also thanks for the vandalism fix. I'm going to be sure and watch it every day.

Regarding The Nightowls – yes they’ve had a meteoric rise in 2 yrs for an Austin band. Austin is known as the “Live Music Capital of the World”. With hundreds of musicians - they have toped every “best of Austin poll”. Out of 9,000 applicants – they were selected for 1 of the 2,000 SXSW Music Festival showcases this year. They were selected as 1 of 10 bands “to watch out for” in Austin Monthly Magazines SXSW music issue. They have played every major festival & venue in Austin. Austin City Limits Music festival is considered one of the most prestitous - 130 artists from around the world are invited to perform. For the 2nd yr in a row they are one of only about dozen local Austin musicians selected. They have their 2nd album coming 9/4 & then will tour nationally – hitting all the major cities. Their song – “No One Wants to Leave” is the official song of the Austin Convention & Tourist Bureau. Their social media is growing rapidly – i.e. last wk alone the FB likes increased 300. I could go on…

So....I don’t know how to convey all this i.e. they are a standout for Austin musicians. They've already grown to be more than a local band - which will only increase after tours & ACL. I’ll look into what an encyclopedic article is..

Again thanks for your help & guidance. David R AustinTx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.72.181 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

sure thing, user:david r austintx. David R AustinTx I think Wikipedia is a great place but takes a lot of practice and a lot of frustration tolerance. I've learned in my short time here, that there are "references" and then there are references, which mean that the accepted references are independent, third party coverage of the topic. The Nightowls are sure to be an international success, which is really great for them and the music fans who enjoy them. I looked briefly on google and a lot of the references seem to fall just short of the official guidelines, but the good thing is that you're invested in the project and want to keep going! What you don't want is someone coming along and placing a "speedy deletion" tag on the article which shortcuts the opportunity to beef up the article, but it looks like the Lead section has forwarded a notability argument (at least in my eyes, which are brand new). But lots of other editors have different opinions and I thought it would be good to give you a heads up. So if you can find newspaper listings that have an independent review of the band (not just a mention of them playing at a major festival), or a national magazine covering the style of the music and mentioning them, that sort of thing. Wikipedia seems to aim to be a reflection of what the world is saying about the topic. If any of the band has an interview by a local radio personality... etc. etc., as long as it's not thinly disguised advertising, which sometimes cause a knee jerk reaction. As I said I'm just getting started myself so I would refer you to the Tea House, or do a lot of reading on the bands that have nationally recognized status, and read the types of references and what sources those editors are using for that band's wikipedia page. As open as Wikipedia is, I would also suggest, kindly and gently, that you do some other reading, editing and contributions because you don't want someone coming along and saying your user account is a single purpose account, (WP:SPA). You're a really good writer and I'll bet you could make some contributions to the overall effort WP:HERE. Well... great talking to you and I'll see you around the Wikipedia.Cityside189 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, user:david r austintx David R AustinTx- I tried to work on the article and there are some references I found that speak to the notability issue. I don't think it's completely out of the woods yet, so more work needs to be done. Well I'm watching the article so if you find other references, it would be great. Did David Hood or Spooner Oldham say anything that is covered in the press? Just an idea. Also there may be a time down the line to distinguish the article from The Night Owls which also exists on Wikipedia. Not sure how to do that ... but just lending a hand where I can. The band seems really great, it's amazing to see new (ish) talent rising so quickly! happy editing! Cityside189 (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

THANKS user:Cityside189 for all your help & suggestions! It's greatly appreciated. Adding a page for Ryan is a good - which I'll do after I get The Nightowls more straightened out. On the picture - yes I have a pic to add along with "The Background" - but then found all these flags that I've been trying cleanup (with a lot of help from you). I really want to do that - they've released trailer for their tour - they tweeted about & it's on You Tube. I track all their You Tube views & social media stats & their numbers keep rising as their tour gets publicity. - which starts 9/2. I'll tackle the pic next week. I added the KVU article ref. I want to add the other, but need to figure out where. Thanks again for your help & monitoring the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David R AustinTx (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: reliable source

Hello, Cityside189. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Cityside189! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:05, Saturday, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Previous account

I was about to query you about which previous account you were registered under before your Cityside189 account, but I see from this and this that you've already been through that aspect. Surely you must understand the reason why very experienced editors think that you are a WP:Sock of someone is because you don't edit like a true WP:Newbie. Your edits have WP:Newbie qualities, but you also know more things about Wikipedia than WP:Newbies usually know. Many of us here have heard the "I started out editing as an IP" excuse before, and have seen people act like WP:Newbies in ways that make it painfully obvious that they are acting.

If you reply to me about this, you can reply here at your talk page without WP:Pinging me. Your talk page is now on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Flyer22, How can I be most helpful to you? I can write messages with you, which I would appreciate. I can also have phone/voice contact if you would wish, I think that sometimes no matter how much text communication there is, there's no substitute for voice contact, second only to face-to-face communication which is obviously unlikley. (however there's Skype now-a-days which I know how to use). I don't know what to write which won't seem defensive or that I'm trying to hide something. I've seen some other users include personal information on talk pages, and done right, it can seem to allay some concerns that the user is a false account, so I might want to do that. But I've got some concerns about that now that I've put my foot in my mouth, and made edits that I am embarrassed about. (This is not new, I have done the same thing at work, ... clicked "send" after a lengthy tirade about something, you'd think that I would have learned my lesson... but alas....)

I started editing Wikipedia from my home computer on a wifi network, then a few times from my workplace down the road, which shows up as another IP address. I can give you both those IP addresses but they show up in the history. I wanted to be anonymous at first because I wanted to edit a controversial topic. I have to be honest... I did think at first that by marching in here like a know-it-all, using internet references, I could stun and amaze the Wikipedia editors. This was an arrogant and disrespectful approach, little did I know. A few days later I saw that not using an account name my edits might be taken less seriously, and I realized too that I was being a chicken. I believed in what I was saying so why not establish the user name? The first time my username came live, a window popped up saying that I should edit an article on a random basis, so I did that. For a few more days I continued my arrogant approach, but then started realizing quickly that there was a deeper community here, one that I wanted to stay a part of. Since then I have stayed away from most articles for which I might be seen as having a bias or difficulty in maintaining neutrality. What I like about Wikipedia is that it makes me think and brings me back to my research days, something I have been out of for 22 years. While I started editing here as a novelty, it's actually sparked an interest in me that so far has continued.

So I don't know what else to say, I'm still struggling with the idea of posting my real identity publicly, but would feel very comfortable on a case-by-case basis, so I would invite your e-mail to me with some contact information and I would be glad to reach out. Otherwise if you think it's OK, I will just keep going as I have been, having some fun and trying to help out in good faith. If you notice anything in my contributions that concern you, or if you think I am straying toward breaking down my reputation instead of building it up, I would welcome your ongoing comments to me. --Cityside189 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cityside. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you. There should be no need for you to post your real identity publicly unless you choose to do so. I think that Flyer22 and other editors should realize that there is no valid indication that you are a sock of a blocked editor, and that an SPI has cleared you of such an accusation. I choose to edit under my legal name, and have done so since I first started to edit, but most editors here do not do that. Npr would that prove you were not socking in any case. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel (DES), "that there is no valid indication that [Cityside189 is] a sock of a blocked editor" is an opinion. It contrasts with mine. And the reason for that contrast is that I commonly uncover WP:Socks, and, in almost every case, have been right about suspected WP:Socks or returning editors who are not WP:Socks (by that, I mean WP:Clean start accounts or editors who were never indefinitely blocked but returned with a new account without regard to WP:Clean start), which is also why editors come to my talk page about WP:Sock cases or email me about them. I see valid indications of people being a WP:Sock from even the smallest edit. Cityside189 was cleared in relation to a different account. A WP:CheckUser comparing an account to one account and finding no connection doesn't mean that the account would not be a match to a different account if the WP:CheckUser tool was used for that. An example of such a matter is this recent case where I uncovered a WP:Sock for others. Cityside189 has given his explanation; you support him. I understand that. I am not accusing him of being a WP:Sock. Nor will I pursue a WP:Sock case against him without evidence. But my suspicion that he is a WP:Sock, or a returning editor who was never indefinitely blocked, will remain. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I don't think you're fully aware of how your written words can affect people. My hope is that you can come to appreciate how disruptive it can be for someone like yourself to contribute to my talk page in the ways you have. On the one hand, if I am a user of the type you suspect me of, then I can see how you might like to edit my talk page in this manner. Perhaps such a user would be kept on his toes and would take heed of what must have been issued as a warning. And for that, perhaps your contributions are meaningful and helpful because I see that there are, in fact a lot of users on Wikipedia that need such a warning. On the other hand, if I were possibly a new user without the history that you suspect me of, then I might feel somewhat picked on (or otherwise made unnecessarily uncomfortable) by your unsolicited comments. The latter is true. You came to my talk page when I decided to contribute meaningfully to the Sex Offender article, apparently raising your suspicions when I asked for the references to be moved down and asking if using my sandbox would be preferable to making a lot of edits on the talk page there. I was excited to contribute in an area I have expertise in and wanted to share that. I think (IMHO) you thought to yourself, "aha, I have caught another editor pretending to be a newbie, I will march over there to his talk page and make sure he knows what I think". When I saw your message I was concerned, and I tried to reach out and establish a good connection with you, but you have not reciprocated nor had anything else to say except when you apparently discovered I went to an administrator after getting your comments. I have looked at your own talk page and contributions to find out more about you, and I realize you have struggled a lot, and I would ask you one more time to please treat me with dignity and respect until you conclude that I deserve less than that. You don't seem open to the idea of a "false positive" and how this can affect the initial experiences of certain users like myself. In closing I sense that you are the type of editor that will continue to believe and do whatever you want. Wikipedia has a gazillion editors and some people may not like me or appreciate my contributions no matter what. That's OK with me, I need to develop thicker skin. I think you owe me an apology and an effort on your part to build a bridge of mutual respect with me, but I can just sense how you will probably disagree, so I will leave you in peace. I do have to say that if you keep bothering me, I will consider my attempts at resolving this as failed, and will complain about you and ask the authorities to intervene on my behalf. At this point I'll just chalk this up to another learning experience and hopefully we can go on about our business. I will also post this on your talk page in case you are no longer watching my talk page. --Cityside189 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you assume I became aware of you because of your edits to the Sex offender article. As for you going to DESiegel (DES), I knew the moment you went to him. Everything else you stated is also interesting, for reasons I will not state here since you will cite it as WP:Harassment. As for if I "keep bothering you," I already stated, "I am not accusing [you] of being a WP:Sock. Nor will I pursue a WP:Sock case against [you] without evidence. But my suspicion that [you are] a WP:Sock, or a returning editor who was never indefinitely blocked, will remain." It would be wise of you to leave the matter at that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you replied in this manner, Flyer22. I don't think you really read my note, or perhaps didn't take the time to digest it. I think you are still trying to bother me. I'm going to raise this issue as a complaint and as a failed attempt at conciliation/resolution. I'm asking you now quite formally to leave me alone and also politely direct your further comments to the appropriate forum which will be set up for this purpose. --Cityside189 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your research Cityside189, thank you for the time you took to find ten reliable sources to use as citations for the small amount oF good faith content that I added to the Planned Parenthood article. I really appreciate your effort. Checkingfax (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming references

If you put

ref name=

inside the first ref tag you can reuse that tag just by using the

ref name= /

format.

After inserting all your bare refs you can fill them in with the Refill utility, except Refill cannot access nytimes.com links yet. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks user:checkingfax... So I understand the coding to be <ref name=goof>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cityside189&action=edit&section=10</ref> so that later on if I want to use it again I can use <ref name=goof/> I will look up the refill utility. Cityside189 (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah... I am using Bare URL's in almost all my work... a colorful term "link rot"... I will study the relevant articles and learn the better way. The refill utility description is written with computer programmer's jargon and it will take me a bit of effort to understand and use it... I'm a psychologist so I have a different set of jargon... I have always liked computer language because it's so much more cleanly precise. Between you and me (figuratively) after 23 years of work with people, I think I like computers better than people, mostly because computers do exactly what you tell them to do and patients often do not. Hence they contribute to their own problems... think of a computer that thinks for itself but can't really do it well... so you provide coding instructions to help it, and it says, nah, I don't really want to turn on my CPU fan, and then it's back in your office repeatedly complaining of being overheated. Thanks again for the tip user:checkingfax... Cityside189 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For naming a reference at its first use, use this nomenclature:

<ref name="reference name">http://www.newyorktimes.com</ref>

And the next time(s) you need the ref, use this nomenclature:

<ref name="your reference name" />

(Note: don't use a closing ref tag)

Here is the link to Refill:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/index.php

I uncheck the box for "do not add access dates", and I check the box for "add blank metadata fields when the information is unavailable." Cheers! PS: Linkrot is when links stop working. By using full links future editors can try to slueth down a rotted link by its title, author, date of publication, etc. Checkingfax (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You know more than me now. A tip: If you put quote marks around your ref name then you can use name="blah blah blah". Quote marks allow you to use spaces. Also for some reason most editors, examples, and bots put a non-breaking space before the / in the ref naming tag. I'll tell you another ref tip I just learned today, later. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the Planned Parenthood page after the word protests to cite that it meant nationwide protests I added eleven references. The next time I looked there was only one showing, ref 24. Turns out a helpful editor surrounded my eleven refs (10 of which you provided) with a special opening and closing tag called nref. Without deleting any of the existing ref code you put {{nref| in front of the opening ref tag then you close the encapsulation with }} (two curley braces). If you go to PP and click on ref 24 it will jump you down the page to the bottom of the other eleven. You can also hover your mouse on 24 to see the conjoining. Do a view-source of the lead section on PP if you can't visualize it from my narrative. Have fun! Checkingfax (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much user:Checkingfax, it's a delightful interaction with you. The coding is like a rubics cube or one of those snake-folding puzzles - a lot of staring and slowing down looking at one character at a time.... yes I see what you mean, and that does seem like a handy way to keep the article concise without strings of numbers on the heavier-referenced parts. I was thinking what refn| means... "ref encapsulate"... not sure I'm going to use that from now on because it's so much cleaner.... ex.refn|ref name="great reference 1"www.ford.com, the best cars are fun to drive ref name"great reference

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --Cityside189 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cityside189. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Flat Out (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

References in talk pages

Hello again Cityside189. You recently expressed some concern in an edit summary about the positioning of references that appear in a talk page, and how the header for the section kept getting moved above new sections while the references stayed below. I have now fixed the problem by pinning those references to the section they belong with. For future reference, the way to do this follows:

===References===

{{reflist-talk}}

This creates a level 3 heading, and then collects references from above and places them at the location of "{{reflist-talk}}". Search "TEMPLATE:REFLIST" for more info about this template, including options. I hope this helps you the future with these situations. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Etamni, thank you, this is very helpful, I am very grateful you have taken the time to write, and for all the good commentary on that article. I'm sorry it's taking a while to get the hang of certain elements of editing. I hope I'm not burning out the more established editors like yourself. Another question I have, if you have the time, is my often bare URL references. I've tried the reFill tool which worked ok for some things. Should I just practice manually editing the web citations with the different field values, or is there a special tool that will work on one ref at a time? Cityside189 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please use {{reflist-talk}} on talk pages. Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, but didn't know what it was called. --Cityside189 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, for filling in reference metadata fields there is a tool called Proveit that allows you to fill in the fields more easily. Proveit is a powerful GUI tool for viewing, editing, adding, and inserting references. Go to Preferences > Gadgets > Proveit to enable it. Then in your editing window you will have a Proveit toolbar all across the bottom of your edit window. Press "^" button to pop-up the Proveit window. Be sure your insertion curser is in position before you click on add-reference. When you are enabling Proveit in Preferences there is a link there to the Help documentation. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I edited the instruction above to prevent confusion if anyone else reads this, but doesn't read all of it. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

00:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC) --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cityside189. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cityside189. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 01:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Merger discussion for Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Articles (related to some) that you have been involved in editing—Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Some guidance I got on Bare URL's

Cityside. FYI - I had added a review of the Nightowls Fame Sessions CD & the associated URL to their article. I found this by searching on Google & not only is it an excellent review but it's in the UK - so it adds an international second source reference. I reached out to Fylbecatulous for guidance because I see that when I add a URL - he expands it with additional coding & I didn't understand it. I see that you also posted a question on Bare URL's. As always he give great help & guidance. Check out his talk page with his answer - he knows so much & offers some shortcuts & tools to use. He checked out the reference I added & said it's good but didn't save his changes - keeping it there to give me something to practice on. I'm going this weekend to ACL Weekend #1. I'm also going the following friday of Weekend 2 when The Nightowls play. I don't know if you are aware of ACL but it's a huge deal to be invited. 130 bands from all over the world perform on 8 stages over 3 days & it's right across from downtown Austin. I'm so excited - there are so many amazing acts to see.

I'm going to begin editing an article I found - "Music of Austin, Texas". It's really extensive but needs a lot of work. For instance there are lots of references which have Wikipedia articles but are not coded as such. There's also a lot of information to add. Are you still planing on doing a biography? David R AustinTx (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)