Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[1]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coaster. I'd like to see if I could get you to look at the current discussion on the Academy of Achievement Talk page once again; the discussion has progressed since you last weighed in, and I have proposed a possible compromise on the "EduCap" issue. Hope to see you there, at least once the strike is over. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted a follow-up comment on the Academy Talk page; I look forward to continuing the discussion when you have the chance. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. But why a birth certificate? That would mean that we would have to get a birth certificate on every bio on the wikipedia. In her autobiography her grandparents names are given as "von Drachenberg", her own name is given as "von Drachenberg"; there are official US government documents that state her name as "von Drachenberg", so do countless secondary sources, major newspapers, books, her facebook account, IMDb, her interviews, etc, etc. Where does this claim that her name is "Drachenberg" only come from anyway... it just doesn't make any sense. Every other language wikipedia page names her "von Drachenberg". So just because there is one editor trying to prove his POV reason does not apply anymore?--IIIraute (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Academy of Achievement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Mayo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Coaster. Last week I put up a small request on the Academy of Achievement Talk page regarding an arguably missing name from the list of student delegates, with a ((Request edit)) template, but I haven't received any response. Would you mind taking a look at it? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Coaster. As I said back on the Academy page, thanks for the help and I agree about the chronological listing. By the way, your second point raises a question I had in mind, perhaps you can offer some feedback. The Academy is interested in finding out whether a list article for winners of the Golden Plate award would be plausible. In my investigation of existing articles and guidelines, I've found myself weighing WP:NOTCATALOG against WP:NLIST. The third-party sources which might make the case for a standalone article are currently used in the Academy draft itself, while a complete list of winners would have to be sourced back to the Academy itself; many articles exist identifying individual winners (often in their obits) but there is no accounting for all winners besides the Academy's own website. Of course, the same appears to be true of list articles associated with the Oscars, for example List of Best Actor winners by age. Any feedback you might have would be very welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coaster92. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hi Coaster92,

Could you possibly re-open this DR? As the discussion on the talk page is going no where with the DR results being ignored. Also the objecting parties seem to change their reasoning every time a valid rationale point for change is made. Also despite the ongoing discussion this edit was made [2] by User:One Night In Hackney based on this reasoning [3] which is a very inflammatory action. Gravyring (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Concerns are that the page has been riddled with POV that the article is not very coherent or consistent. 1. The term 'International' was removed with out consensus [4]. If you can see a consensus here, then Ill ignore this. The same old argument that NI is not a country, hence NI can not have an international border blah blah blah, yet in the article this exists the border. 2. United Kingdom or UK is short for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so I'm at odds as to why NI can not be mentioned in the location field. 3. The location field does allow for NI in the location field, contrary to BJmullans interpretation of the Infobox. NI does not need to be a country, for Northern Ireland to be a location. Its ridiculous. I do not see why NI can not be used in the location field as NI-ROI border. 4. MY suggestion to pipe NI-ROI border text to ROI-UK border page was also blocked yet pipe from point 1 exists. Its a contradiction. 5. The opposition argument is very weak. 6. Opposition argument and edit made without consensus [5].

There are users who are clearly pushing some sort of POV.Gravyring (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster, thanks for looking into this but it needs more that an impartial opinion. Page obviously is completely inconsistent with years of edit warring and pov pushing. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any way to force someone to discuss a change, nor do they have to explain themselves when they make a revert. The objections so far have been like comparing apples with pears. In the [6] BJmullan suggested that I wanted to remove the pipelink from the page, but no where on the Carlingford Talk Page did I suggest that. A complete fabrication, yet that was his objection. All your advice is welcome.Gravyring (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of other pages using the same template as Carlingford Lough [7], [8], [9], [10]. These loughs are all in Northern Ireland, and all reference Northern Ireland in the Location field. Any argument that suggests that Northern Ireland can not be used in this field, is just pure POV pushing.Gravyring (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with these articles are the loughs do not border a sovereign state. Coaster92 you might be interested in this edit by Gravyring which was made without any consensus whatsoever. This editor talks about other's POV but all he seems to be interested in is pushing his own. I think you are on a hiding to nothing... Bjmullan (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bjmullan, whether a lough borders a sovereign state is irrelevant if it is inconsistent with the article content and not the most specific term to use. If you want to be more vague, you could say that the lough is in Western Europe. Your argument that Northern Ireland could not be used in the location field was false as I've shown a number of pages using the same template and using 'Northern Ireland' as the location. This edit was made by One Night in Hackney [11] and you supported this edit [12] even though the edit was made without consensus, so please dont spew hypocrisy. My edit was made with support from HackneyHound and Mabuska and was consistent with text, infobox and map. Can you please answer these questions [13]? Gravyring (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coaster for your comments. I dare say that those will probably be ignored. For lack of a good argument, those who oppose seem to go silent, but then when you make an edit they come out of hiding again. Its ashame that this is what wiki is like, but thanks again.Gravyring (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster, the RFC seems to have hit a wall. The users who oppose the suggestion seem to be reasoning not relevant to the change. Can you advise what is the next step? How do you get around POV like this?Gravyring (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Coaster. I hope I'm not a bother, but I'm writing to check in with you about the proposed List of Golden Plate awardees drafts. As I replied on my Talk page earlier in the week, of course I do mean for only one to be used, though I wanted to present some different options. If you think the "chronological" is ready to post, would you be willing to move it to the mainspace? Relatedly, I've also got a couple of minor additional suggestions for the Academy of Achievement article I'm going to post over there in a moment. If you want to review those, feel free, though I'm going to put a ((Request edit)) tag on it as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have on for deletion. The nominated article is Plummer v. State.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You are welcome to edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Coaster. Since you asked for a ping, I'm all too happy to supply one—two, actually. I've just posted a pair of responses, first on the Academy Talk page about the Foundation's support, and on my Talk page about the Golden Plate list, with a small request. Meantime, thanks so much for your help with both. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just replied on my Talk page re: the hatnote. WWB Too (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed an error of my own on the Golden Plate list article: Barbra Streisand's name is misspelled on the list; I accidentally used the more common spelling of "Barbara", which is wrong in this case. Seems silly to ask you about it when it's so obviously non-controversial an edit, but better safe than sorry, I figure. Also, have you had a chance to consider the hatnote and orphan tag removal? Let me know when you have a moment. Best, WWB Too (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your note: thanks for taking care of all those changes! Plus I've seen your reply on the Academy Talk page. I'll think about it over the weekend, and should have some thoughts for you Monday. Meantime, I hope you have a great weekend. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all of your assistance with the Academy of Achievement and Golden Plate articles! You've been extraordinarily helpful. WWB Too (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contribution to BMW R1100GS discussion. Since your contribution no new evidence has been presented by Dennis Bratland (or others) to show that the section on Neil Peart's book should remain on the motorbike article page.

However, since then I have started to receive advisories from the user Dennis Bratland regarding my supposed 'personal attacks' on him. It seems like a tactic to divert from the discussion of discredited evidence/sources. (And on the BMW R1100GS article 'talk' page, the codes WP:OWN and WP:SNOW where thrown about without any justification)

Also, now this - Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban - which is an attempt by user Dennis Bratland to ban the whole topic!

As you have already shown your objectivity and distance from these subjects, could I suggest your 'fresh perspective' input on this would be a great help. I wouldn't want to see the noticeboard discussion deleted because of false accusations. Thanks.
Rivercard (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Topic bans explains what a topic ban actually is. I would think you wouldn't let it come to that. Wikipedia:Canvassing takes a dim view of notifying the one editor from the the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion that you think might be sympathetic, while pointedly not inviting the others whom you think might not be on your side. It's called votestacking. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm very surprised by your reaction because there's ample evidence on other talk pages of you discussing continuing entry edits with users such as Biker Biker, so it seems strange for you to disagree with it in principle as the evidence suggests you are for it. Also, Coaster92 has proved to be an objective and non-connected editor who has commented on the noticeboard discussion of their own volition - so to complain about their involvement seems to suggest you think otherwise. I have no way of guaranteeing what they think on this and wanted them included as a way of introducing third-party balance. Finally, I cannot contact other editors who 'might not be onside' because there are none who have fundamentally disagreed with the case - so it would be difficult to do that.

However, in the spirit of hands-across-the-ocean, what is your view now on your own use of some, shall we say, 'strong' response language on the R1100GS 'talk' page (I think you know which I mean as I've mentioned them before). I ask because I've yet to read a response by you to the mention of it. (And, remember, it is me that often attempts to humanise these exchanges rather than have them degenerate it cold factionalism. In other words, I'm all for doing the best for the article entry.)

Rivercard (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible explain the WP:POINTy retaliation against Biker Biker's edits of the Corrado article without mentioning him by name. When anyone is mentioned by name on AIN, you are expected to notify them. If I were to guess, I'd say Biker Biker agrees with me about Ghost Rider, but disagrees with me about WP:WPACT, and doesn't give a hoot about personal attacks enough to weigh in on AIN. So it's neither here nor there and notifying him was a formality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slight misunderstanding here: actually, I didn't mean 'talk' page mentions specifically about this case; I meant that on your talk page you had in the past clearly discussed ongoing edit disputes with editors who were involved in them, which is why I was surprised at your reaction to the idea of this editor's involvement. That's all it was, nothing sinister. Rivercard (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI Dennis Bratland and Rivercard. I am happy to help out if I can but right now I am not sure what is requested of me. Rivercard, I did see on the DRN discussion that Dennis B is researching a different approach for the Ghost Rider section of the article, presumably an approach in which the connection of this section to the topic would be readily apparent. That could be worth a try. Please let me know what you would like me to do.Coaster92 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster92. Well, nothing was expected of you from me other than the clear-minded and objective view of things that you had already displayed. And I was simply thanking you for that and that I valued your input. Dennis Bratland called this 'canvassing' but you might be interested to know that other editors have since looked at my messsage to you and agree with me that it is not canvassing - see here - Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban.

Re: Dennis Bratland's 'researching a different approach for the Ghost Rider section'. You might be interested to know I've posted a rebuttal of this idea on the original BMW R1100GS (Reopend) noticeboard discussion, and there is ample evidence - even on Wikipedia itself - that there are other motorbike's that Peart could have used instead of this one. Which rather destroys the notion that the book is inextricable linked to the bike.

Anyway, hopefully, Dennis won't seek out this brief communication I've made with you and use it to accuse me of some other kind of violation! With regards, Rivercard (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure which editors who have been involved in the original discussions I should notify of this - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but rather than mistakenly leave out, I'll instead include. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Golden Plate awardees 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/List of Golden Plate awardees 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 template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coaster, thanks for the notice, and sorry about the trouble. I've actually got citations for additional coverage that I hadn't included (because they weren't online) which I'll take to the discussion page sometime today. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your latest post at the Buddy Fletcher thread. But I want to assure you: no worries. Not much is permanent here. Especially at BLPN. The text you cited at BLPN applies to the things in the first ten words of what you quoted. It doesn't apply to content. A useful content-related link is at WP:NNC. On balance, I think content ought to be noteworthy in light of the subject and the subject's notability, but need not be tied to any central claim of notability. As long as the prose strikes the best balance in terms of textual import, no content in particular is limited. I don't question your good faith in your view on mentioning a same-sex relationship in this context, but I've found it helpful to ask myself, "Is this something the subject would [rightfully or questionably] want to muzzle?" That's not carte blanche for the subject when the answer is "yes," but here, objectively, the answer is "no." The line of questioning ends. Plus, there's no apparent libelous untrue statement at any rate. I do not intend to browbeat with this post. You've been big. Again, thank you. And I apologize for my tone generally. I hope you'll keep contributing at BLPN. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster, I really appreciated your assistance with the List of Golden Plate awardees article recently—particularly with the AfD. Now that the article is definitely going to stay, I've been thinking about possibly updating it with an expanded list of names. I wanted to get your opinion on whether it would be reasonable to expand the list based on this new page on the Academy of Achievement website, which summarizes winners of the award by category.

At the moment the infobox links to the page for 2007-2009 winners, but I think it would make more sense to link to this new summary page. If this page was then so linked, does it seem reasonable to add the rest of the names from this page to the list? I've checked and there would be around 150 new names to add to the article. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my requests for the Jack Welch article. I've replied there but also wanted to leave this note in case you aren't watching that page. I noticed you commented on the unsourced criticisms and maybe didn't see the other two requests above. If you have time now, would you be able to look at those and also the third statement from the "Criticisms" section? So far, there have not been any other replies to the requests (on the Talk page, at the BLP noticeboard or at the Paid Editor Help page) and I'd be very grateful for your help. I'll also try at the Help desk, in case someone there can help. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hamilton83. I went to the article and talk page to check it out and it looks like everything has been done as you have requested by Canoe1967. So I think you are set for now.Coaster92 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over and taking a look at things. I actually have one more request, which I've posted on the Jack Welch discussion page, in case you're able to consider it. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Hamilton83. I took a look at the reference for the current statement in the article concerning Welch's retirement compensation. The source is actually quoting the ex-wife's divorce papers, which are not a reliable secondary source. The source also states that Welch gave up the package and started funding most everything himself. So there needs to be an edit based on this alone. But I was not able to identify or connect to the source of your proposed statement. Let me know what the source is and how to connect and I will have a look at that.Coaster92 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Coaster. If you have the opportunity, would you be willing to revisit the Compensation discussion of Jack Welch's talk page? I made some adjustments to the proposed new text based on a reply from Maximilianklein, but since July 9 there have not been any further replies. I have asked him as well, but I would really like your input too. I hope to see you there again soon. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the proposed paragraph could use more detail, including specific mention of the luxury apartment, jet and chauffeured limo (instead of "transportation") and why the package came under scrutiny, ie, presumably the need to allocate the perks in the divorce, possible SEC questions, and the issue of greed. I left this comment on the article talk page as well.Coaster92 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Coaster, I've made several changes to the section regarding Jack Welch's compensation taking into account the most recent feedback from you and Maximilianklein. This version better explains the compensation package and notes the criticism over "greed" that you mentioned. I would appreciate it if you had time to review the changes I've made and make the edit if you agree with the wording. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliankleinoclc added the latest version of your paragraph to the criticism section. Is this what you wanted?Coaster92 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a participant at RSN and for visiting the History of Transcendental Meditation talk page. I hope you will be able to spend some time on the TM topic in the future. There are many related articles and a more sets of eyes from new editors are needed. I don't know how much time or interest you have but any help or input is appreciated. For example, recently a few editors made one-time visits to the Transcendental Meditation technique article and commented that some parts of the article sounded promotional. If you see any specific areas that need to be edited for neutrality I would be very interested in that feedback (or you can just go ahead and adjust the text as needed). If you have any time to look at that talk page and/or the article that would be very helpful. Thanks again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster92, there are a number of search engine tools around that can help you find info on a topic and I've listed a bunch of FREE sources below. When a citation does not have a URL to support it, it often means that the editor who created the citation read the source via a PAID subscription service and therefore cannot provide a URL web link. That means you have to find it on your own. You can try some of the search tools listed below HOWEVER, what I have found to be much more useful is to contact my local library and get the password for their paid research service. There are some very powerful and comprehensive ones like Proquest and Lexis that will save you a lot of time. Most libraries will allow their local card holders to use the service for free. ALSO, you can sometimes acquire paid services for free through Wikipedia ie High Beam (news and magazines) (apply here), Questia (academic books)(apply here), Credo (encyclopedias etc.) (apply here) but they are not as powerful as Proquest etc.

• Research Tools
  • Google News Search Archives
  • Google News Search
  • Google News Timeline Search
  • Google Books Search
  • Google Scholar Search
  • Google Book Citation Tool
  • Google Ngram Viewer
  • World Cat
  • The Free Library
  • Magazine Search
  • Pub Med Search
  • PDF Search
  • Legal Search
  • Wiki Search
  • Web Page Archive search
  • US State Archives search
  • TV News Archive
  • Rolling Stone mag search
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI, regarding your comment:" It looks to me that the discussion of monastic communities in this article focuses on the activities of the people, rather than the buildings. Offhand, it does not seem the section is the best fit with the MSV article. Unless I am missing something" This is a good point..... but as an alternative can you take a look at the Maharishi Sthapatya Veda are article and look at the content there on monastic communities there? Do you feel its also more about people than architecture? I'm just trying to avoid duplication and to figure out where what is the proper place for this content. Any help or insights are appreciated. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did check the topic in the MSV article and that was my impression, that the focus in that article is on the buildings and land more than the activities of the participants (which is the discussion in the other article). It does not look like duplication to me. Please point me in the right direction if I overlooked something.Coaster92 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Lynch Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Horn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For a great copy-edit of a awful subject. Thank you for your fine work. WhiteWriterspeaks 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What edit, WW?Coaster92 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organ theft in Kosovo. You may check talk page.. :) All best! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhiteWriter. That is an interesting topic. It seems so long ago I worked on that. Best wishes.

Hello, Coaster92. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, Northamerica. I went ahead and joined up.Coaster92 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing on, and please feel free to post entries there for clean-up! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster. Thanks for your note. I love trouble-shooting things like this. Again, it was simply a matter of deleting extra spaces in the named refs and deleting the quotation marks around the ref names. (I have an intuition about what was causing the problem, and could probably explain it. But likely it's not worth the time.) When you name a ref, simply don't use spaces or quotation marks: <ref name=NYTimes>. On subsequent references, also omit spaces and quotation marks: <ref name=NYTimes/>. In many of the refs you had put a space before the = sign. Great work on the article. You've really improved it! TimidGuy (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure what to say. Certainly the spaces before the = sign were a problem, but the quotation marks also seemed to be an issue. It's possible that you drafted the text in Word, which used a special character for the curved quotation marks, and possibly WP markup didn't recognize that special character. When I type quotation marks in WP markup, they're straight rather than curved. That's just a guess. TimidGuy (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coaster92. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 11:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coaster92. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 10:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]