User talk:Olivierd

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello Olivierd, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome! James Kendall [talk] 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adams

Part of the point I was making is that the inclusion of The Great Ape Project had NO reference at all. It HAS now been properly referenced, but I shouldn't HAVE to go and look it up if someone else is wanting to include it. That's why all additions to articles are supposed to be verifiable, and why that link comes up in EVERY edit window, before anyone clicks on save. --JohnDBuell 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Possibly useless link on Ethics of eating meat article

I have responded on my talk page, and asked for consensus on the article's talk page.--Hq3473 15:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgware road statue

I agree with you on that! I've already posted the question on a London Underground forum I read. When I get an answer there (someone should know/be able to find out quite easily) I'll add it to the picture description. Thryduulf 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is not bad on the Edgware Road page, so we might as well leave it there until the space is needed for a better picture. I don't think that an article on a single statue (with exceptions for very notable statues like the Statue of Liberty) will meet the notability requirements for an article of its own. If there is a more general article about statues in London then I think it would be apropriate there. I know nothing about statues though so I can't help you on what that article would be if it exsts! Thryduulf 12:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnivore

Hello. There seem to be a disagreement on weither humans are omnivores or not. =\

  • As the article says, "they are able to digest the components of plants in the manner of herbivores but also readily assimilate nutrients from meat." Description fits humans. It is a matter of capability.
  • The phrase "Many primates" is means "many species of primates." It is not about individuals.
  • Is your objection that not all humans are eating meat? Well, there are always exceptions, you know? (Yes, I know that a large fraction of the world population are vegs.)

...Oh, and the article about humans also states that humans are omnivores. That has to dealt with (or not, depending on the outcome of this).
Think about it? --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic status of ancestor

Dear Olivierd, the monophyletic groups do not include ancestors. Taxonomy deals with real organisms or their fossil traces and not with purely hypothetical entities of any sort, ancestors included. If you only allow ancestors in the scheme you will be caught in a vicious circle discovered many years ago. See paraphyly talk page for a rehearsal of this discussion. So, I modified the definition of paraphyly back and made appropriate changes to the other parts of the article. I see, monophyly needs cleanup too. Cheers, Alexei Kouprianov 16:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarecrow

Would this source interest you? NTK 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Any information on the subject interests me.
However, that doesn't justify putting back that information on the "cat" page. Not only because the opinion of vegancats.com on the subject may not be reliable (their experience is not necessarily the whole picture); mainly, because it may well be that vegan cats have more kidney stones, but less cancer, but more diabetes, but less skin problems, but more this, and less that, and so on. It might be justified to put on the "cat" page a comprehensive study comparing the health value of the different diets - and also mentioning that the welfare of the cats is not the only issue, what happens to the cows and chicken that meat-fed cats eat counts too, at least in the opinion of some people. But it is not interesting, and not fair, to overload the page with partial information that all goes in the same direction - beware, beware, beware that cats are carnivores, don't feed them a veggy diet!
David Olivier 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an onlooker / Vapour

Sorry, about the above person / persons personal attack on Talk:Veg (I suspect some sockpuppetry). I'm trying to rehabilitate the Wikipedia:Troll as per WP:BITE, before brining in the big guns. --Mig77(t) 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian nutrition

Please review my additon to Talk:Vegetarian_nutrition#Protein re your revert of my edits. I am not here to debate whose "truth" the page "should" reflect, rather that my edits follow the official policies of this site. Mdbrownmsw 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Cat

ahh well, sorry I left so angrily. It didn't seem like anyone on that page was really interested in compromises anyway. Some people will just think one way and never change their mind. I'm glad you were more receptive than some of the other guys were though. Maybe this will all cool off someday and you guys will be able to peacefully come to terms with each other (It actually does happen sometimes) in the meantime, how 'bout a drink? Gin and Curacao anyone? Bottoms up! Antimatter---talk--- 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 17 2006 to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have blocked you for 24 hours for four reverts on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, a violation of WP:3RR. Ignoring the irony of the location of the war, edit warring is bad no matter where it happens. Please take this as a short break, and when you return to editing refrain from edit warring like this. - TexasAndroid 22:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've reversed my block. On closer examination, it was one initial removal, and 3 reverts, so not strictly a 3RR violation. Yet. One more removal of the material in the near future will indeed take you into 3RR violation. - TexasAndroid 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say you unblocked it (and the unblocking is listed on my block log) but the block still appears to be in effect, preventing me from editing any page.

It is surprising that you were unable to count up to three before blocking! You have a certain responsability in getting my page unblocked without making me wait for 24 hours.

Furthermore, it is surprising that the 3RR rule can apply at all to edits on the Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars page. That page is clearly in violation of both the NPOV guidelines and Wikiquette, since its object is to ridicule certain positions and people. On the LAME talk page, it is argued that that page is humor, and so is not covered by the general WP guidelines. If that is so, it means that there is no way to resolve edit wars that can arise on that page, apart from brute force; I don't see how the 3RR rule can apply in this context, or it just means that the majority (who, being more numerous, can outrevert the minority without violating 3RR) wins and can do what they please, with no regard to decency, fairness or whatever.

David Olivier 23:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should review the three attempts to delete the page, made by people who made similar arguments. The way to stay off of lame edit wars is not to wage a lame edit war. It's really that simple. The page is not only humorous, but in my opinion, serves an actual productive function, by making people think about what they're doing. (It's helped me keep my perspective, for sure.) Besides which, if the majority is outreverting you, maybe they're the majority for a good reason. Grandmasterka 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry for the block. I saw you make the same edit four times, in an edit war, and missed the fact that the first edit was not a revert, but rather the initial edit that started the whole thing. It was not a matter of counting, it was a matter of not seeing the correct situation of that first edit. Again, I'm sorry.
As for you still being blocked, that is likely an auto-block on your IP. I cannot do anything without knowing the IP. I'm dropping a template below that will have instructions for what to do next. Following them will get the next admin who checks on the auto-block unblock requests to help you. If I see it, then I will clear it myself. - TexasAndroid 04:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

  1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
    Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
    If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
  2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
    If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.
  3. If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
    1. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
    2. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page, and click save.
      If you cannot edit your own talk page, use the Unblock Ticket Request System to make your request.


Edit war on WP:LAME over WP:LAME edit war

The cat entry can't be offensive unless you are somehow offended by your own position. The entry takes no sides and simply describes the edit war as it went down. The entire dispute is WP:LAME--RWR8189 03:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 82.230.142.190 lifted or expired.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat ownershipp edit war

Just wondering if you were ok to let it go or if you still wanted to pursue the subjecgt, as yet another mediator has shown up.--Ramdrake 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See delicacy

It means prized it does not mean it is good. Jooler 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for disruptive edit warring on Foie gras

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Tom Harrison Talk 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email. The reverts are listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Your editing was causing disruption. If you will agree to not edit that page until Tuesday I will unblock you. Or, request another administrator to review and unblock by putting {{unblock|REASON WHY}} on this page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got your email. I don't have anything to add to what I said above. Your block has expired now. Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi, I am afraid that I am not much experienced at judging 3RR. I was wondering if any request for a mediation has been made for the foie gras dispute? If not, I'd suggest to make one at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I cannot guarantee that it will provide a solution satisfactory for the both sides, but the situation seems to be quite bad. You could try the RFM and if it doesn't work out the next step is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --BorgQueen 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

[2] The GA status stands until the review concludes it does not. Your continued removal of the GA template is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the 3RR complaint

Please see my talk page. Thanks. --CSTAR 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foie gras mediation request

Hi! I'm writing to let you know that I've opened up a mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-27 Foie Gras controversy) in which you are listed as a participant. Please read me comments in the mediator's response area there, and we can decide on a text for the article. ST47Talk 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Olivierd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet nor have I created any sockpuppets. I ask for a serious review of my case.

Decline reason:

Checkuser block is final. -- WinHunter (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My IPs and Benio76's IPs

During the last months, I have edited consistently from the following IPs:

- 82.230.142.190, which is the IP of my home ADSL connection (resolves to par69-5-82-230-142-190.fbx.proxad.net; alias zucca.david.olivier.name and zucca.hd.free.fr).

- 159.84.6.105, which is the IP of a computer at the university where I work, and resolves to myrtille.univ-lyon2.fr.

Benio76 has edited only from IP address 82.230.142.190 (my home address).

There were several days during which Benio76 and I edited seperately, she from 82.230.142.190 and I from 159.84.6.105, with those edits heavily interleaved. Example: 

Olivierd: 12:21, 4 January 2007 (159.84.6.105)
Benio76: 12:42, 4 January 2007 (82.230.142.190)
Olivierd: 12:57, 4 January 2007 (159.84.6.105)
Olivierd: 13:20, 4 January 2007 (159.84.6.105)
Olivierd: 14:02, 4 January 2007 (159.84.6.105)
Benio76: 14:20, 4 January 2007 (82.230.142.190)
Olivierd: 14:47, 4 January 2007 (159.84.6.105)
Olivierd: 15:36, 4 January 2007 (159.84.6.105)
Benio76: 16:12, 4 January 2007 (82.230.142.190)

This is enough to prove that Benio76 and I are seperate persons.

David Olivier 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As the supposed sock-puppets have been unblocked as not sock-puppets at all, there can be no grounds for this block.

Request handled by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay away from controversy (and especially the Foie gras article) for a while. You might also rethink your User page comments on NPoV and verifiability, which suggest a lack of understanding of both notions, and which are likely to make other editors suspicious of your edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me; and thank you especially for taking the time that was needed to look into the case seriously. I think that any examination of Benio76's edits and mine leaves no doubt as to our being, not only two different persons, but also two people acting of their own accord and following their own independent motivations. But no one before you seemed to want to read those edits, or litterate enough to see the obvious, or honest or courageous enough to state it publicly.
If you want, I would be interested in discussing with you the issues that I mention on my user page about NPOV and verifiability; my main contention is about the relativism that infuses the WP philosophy, and that I disagree with. Perhaps this is not the right time or place to discuss that. I do not think I should delete those comments, however, as long as I have not been brought to change my mind on those issues. I do not think they are offensive to anyone or make me unfit for editing on Wikipedia. If in virtue of them someone should suspect something of me, it is of being frank. It is very easy to state "I am NPOV, indeed, as neutral as can be, and I adhere to Wikipedia's creed with unwavering enthusiasm." I have read such things on user pages and then found out what they are worth.
Whatever I think of Wikipedia's policies, I don't accept the "Wikipedia, love it or leave it" motto. As I say on my user page, I plan to respect NPOV as much as can be made sense of; I plan to respect the rules, and as far as I can tell I have taken them much more seriously than some others have. In this respect, what counts is my edits, not what I believe. Also, all this absurd sockpuppetry stuff would not have happened if people looked into the substance of the controversy I was part of and into the arguments exchanged, instead of looking up people's noses and complaining about our living on the same continent and having similar babelboxes.
I do not think it is right to ask me to stay away from the foie gras article. I have done nothing wrong, unless being part of a controversy was wrong. In the foie gras controversy there were two sides; so if it was wrong to be in the controversy, both sides should have the same "punishment" imposed on them. The main difference is that one side mounted a sockpuppetry case against the other side, a case that they knew was baseless, and managed to get us blocked for over two weeks. I see no reason why, following those events, they should have a free hand on the article.
Now the fact is that I do not plan to go back to editing the article now. I first intend to try to straighten out a few points. What has happened in our case is a major dysfunctioning. We have been cleared of the "sockpuppetry" accusation, but terms such as meatpuppetry, disruption and even vandalism have been floated around against us. No, there was no meatpuppetry, no disruption - or then it was the disruption of the tranquil bias that a group of pro foie gras editors maintained in the foie gras article; as for vandalism, that is simply ridiculous. I want all that to appear clearly. I would also like to know why such a thing was possible. My aim is not to vent the anger that I naturally feel about this, but simply to help insuring that that kind of thing will not happen any more, at least not that easily, to me or to anyone else.
David Olivier 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for standing up against the unethical advocates of Foie gras and their aggrandizing and wiki-lawyering, as well as surviving their petty muck-raking and base attempts to take you out of the debate by any means necessary. WeniWidiWiki 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onechectomy

I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at {{User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw}}

User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the {{ }} and w/o the [[ ]] to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Singer re WP:BLP and do no harm

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pete Singer. Thank you.Mdbrownmsw 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Newsletter n°1

Bonjour and welcome to the first WikiProject France newsletter!! It should become a monthly special of our project, but until the next issue, here are some points to consider for the month:

It doesn't seem like a lot, so I hope we will still have enough problems for nexts months issue. Salut till the next issue, ChrisDHDR (17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

WikiProject Newsletter n°2

It's been one high aiming month! The French WikiProject and related pages have been aiming high for Christmas - and have received an equal number of presents in return!

Well, that's this issue. Au revoir et à bientôt till the next time, ChrisDHDR (18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Request for watching article:Soy cheese due to vandalism

This article is constantly vandalized by one single user, who seems to plan its deletion or destruction (see also Talk:Soy cheese). I am watching over the article from now on, but it is better when more people interested in this subject (especially vegans, people with dairy digesting problems like lactose intolerance or Jews) are looking upon this more frequently.
Thank you :-)
Daimakaicho (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, c'est moi

En réponse à Esprit Fugace (fr.wikipedia): Cette requête est délicate : il existe déjà un compte Olivierd, lequel est un compte global. Si vous êtes en:User:Olivierd, merci de bien vouloir confirmer cette demande de renommage local sous votre compte sur la wikipédia anglophone. Cordialement, Esprit Fugace (d) 14 septembre 2008 à 09:58 (CEST)

Oui, Olivierd sur en = David Olivier sur fr. Comme je le disais, par contre, Olivierd sur fr semble inutilisé. David Olivier (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. I also see you've commented at the Talk:Bill Ayers page in the past. You may want to look at the discussion there at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence. If "terrorism" is a word you'd prefer not be used, you may want to consider whether "violence" should be used. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France newsletter

WikiProject France News

What's new?

  • The project has recently experienced a complete redesign. The Outreach department has also undergone a major expansion, and this newsletter is the result of that.
  • The review department is currently under development, with several new proposals underway. Internal peer review had begun on the page of the project's Review Department. The department currently provides a centralized platform off all currently open reviews throughout the project (Featured Articles, Peer Reviews, Good Articles, Articles for Deletion, Categories for Discussion, etc.)
  • A new task force has been introduced: the Paris task force. Any users interested in contributing to the taskforce can join on the project page.
  • There is a current discussion about merging the French Communes WikiProject into ours. This communes project will be organised as a task force.
User-related news

Notifications

Complete project tasks
Overview

This is the new project newsletter, covering months August through to October, which will contain information regarding new Good and Featured articles, recent project changes, general related news, and recent proposals.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject France. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the creation. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Articles
  • Five articles are currently undergoing external peer reviews:
  1. Louvre Abu Dhabi
  2. Louvre
  3. Family Moving Day
  4. Napoleon I
  5. List of Bellflower Bunny Episodes
  • Two articles have reached GA status this month:
Newsletter contributors

Thank you for your contributions to the project, Jordan Contribs 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Animal rights

You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on your user page

Hi. Hope you don't mind some comments from a logician. That "verifiability is a criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia" not "merely being true is a criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia" is not a contradiction or a nonsense, it's just a more specific criterion.

"To consider [peer-reviewed journals] outright as reliable..." but Wikipedia doesn't do this. Any consideration of what is encyclopedic has to consider a balance of different sources.

"The NPOV policy is literally an appeal to authority, i.e. a form of ad hominem logical fallacy." Well, a logical fallacy has to be involved because there can't be deductively sound guarantees of the truth of a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia, in summarising human knowledge, has to look to authority to define that knowledge, so it's not an error at all. It's best way we have to find out what's true. What else should it do- carry out it's own research? That would be duplication when research already exists, and inadvisable when Wikipedia admits anyone to edit. It seems like you're over-applying these logical terms.

"Emphasis on procedure, as opposed to truth, is the hallmark of operationalism, which would that there is no truth, just (in some sense) correct or incorrect procedures." No, it's an acknowledgement of the practical reality of writing an encyclopedia. You can be realist about truth but accept that a community-written encyclopedia requires verifiability.

Anyway, if you reject the policies of Wikipedia, you can take the free software and create your own encyclopedia on your own principles (it's not clear how they would work in practice) and show the world if it's more productive. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Olivierd. 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Olivierd"