Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 05:08, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Waki-gamae, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Waki. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 06:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut-and-pasted instead of merging and this is the result. I will know better next time.

I have fixed the copy-and-paste move by merging back your latest version then performing an actual move over the deleted Waki-gamae page. — Coren ^(talk) 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Francis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kendo around the world, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author)) to the top of Kendo around the world. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sheena & The Rokkets, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ariconte (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ffbond

Thank you for your interest in the article Abe ryu. Please helping with your knowledge in order to create a serious article.

Few people in the English-speaking world are able to understand Japanese. In this matter please translate your Japanese word in this article and addition an English reference (literature).

Best regards --PublicLibrarian (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day,

I am afraid I only had a Japanese reference and it did not have the pronunciation, so rather than guess I left it underspecified. As wikipedia is collaborative, I am hoping that someone else will be able to find out more. I expect the complete information is in Kendo Gohyakunen Shi, so please look it up there Francis Bond (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Francis, I'm in Melbourne at Fudoshin. (i) Re the itto/ni-to, that terminology is copied directly from the FIK rules. Most people, me included, think of one sword kendo, as kendo and the two sword variant as ni-to. But when discussing the two styles in the same context (ie. the shinai rules) it's probably appropriate to use both terms. (ii) I agree about the clumsiness of the wording. Your suggestion is fine by me. Cheers. Kendo 66 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Hi Francis, I think there's a lot more work to be done on SemEval, and I haven't figured out if it makes more sense to cover the workshops in other articles--like the Evaluation section of Word Sense Disambiguation and possibly a new article on SIG:LEX. In deletion discussions, adherence to policy is the most important thing, so making it clear why SemEval is WP:Notable is probably the most important objective at this point. I see someone has already given advice on the Afd:

" The references cited are excellent sources for understanding word-sense disambiguation, but this page purports to describe SemEval workshops as such, not the scientific/scholarly understandings that grow out of them or otherwise relate to them. I would say that best references for the workshops as workshops would be non-scholarly sources such as newspapers or semi-scholarly work such as Science Daily or Chronicle of Higher Education."

That's good advice. And while the outcome and research of the workshops is definitely relevant to Wikipedia, there's more work to be done to show that the workshop series is itself WP:Notable. Does that make sense? Remember, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia: an article on the workshop would definitely fit in an NLP or computational linguistics encyclopedia, but there's more to be done to fit it into a general-purpose laymen's one. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I think I didn't word my response clearly enough; the source in question was the organization writing about itself, but I should have pointed out that doesn't make it advertising, just that it also doesn't in and of itself assert notability. As to the page; that was an earlier version of the page. To be honest, I haven't looked at it in a few hours, it's after midnight where I am, and I've got another more serious issue to attend to before I log off, so I'll look at it again tomorrow. In the meantime, I truly don't much care what happens to the page, but I'll say that bringing other language wikis into this is a tricky game. For example, I work in CSD a lot, and the requirements for it wildly vary from one to the next. Spanish Wikipedia has CSD A3 for deleting pure original research (something that wouldn't hurt here, if you ask me), whereas Dutch Wikipedia doesn't even have CSD. Notability thresholds are going to be different for projects that have 1 million+ articles compared to one that's 3 times as large; not commenting on the merits of one or the other, just pointing out there's a difference. And obviously the creator and other editors don't think it's an advertisement; they created the page. It matters more what outside editors think; again, I will give it a thorough look tomorrow, I don't do that lightly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would appreciate you taking another look. I do care about the page :-). BTW is the Blade of the Northern Lights a 北斗の拳 reference? It was the first manga I managed to read in Japanese. Francis Bond (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's just coincidence; I basically smashed two of my favorite topics (arcane history and Arctic geography) together to form this name. I did notice the similarity to 北斗の拳 a couple months later, and I had to laugh. I was wondering if anyone else would notice... I guess I have my answer. I'll be back a little later on today, and I'll see what I can do. This is way outside my normal work (of late, I've been doing Burmese history), so I'm not sure how much I can do, but I'll give it my best shot. See you!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after looking it over, I think I found the source of the advert tag. First, the introductory paragraph has some information that is certainly pertinent to the article, but belongs in the body of the article. I think what's happening is that people aren't reading it all the way through, and are just reading the first paragraph; a lot of times, the introductory paragraphs in advertising articles are written with huge amounts of information about what the subject does, but don't explain why the subject is notable. WP:LEDE does an excellent job of describing what an introductory paragraph should look like, so you may want to give that a look if you haven't already. You obviously know this subject far better than I do, so if you can figure out where the information fits best you can move it there. In addition, the Areas of Evaluation section is written almost like a how-to guide for the program. That I can fix, as I've done that innumerable times on NPP. Finally, this now has some references that show some notability, but the article itself needs to better explain why its subject is notable. A good way to start this would be to have a Reception or Criticism section, and then branch out from there. Hope this was helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)By the way, if you didn't notice, I'm not the one who put the tag on; I'm not a fan of putting those types of tags on articles, but if they're there I usually leave them until someone more familiar with the subject has a look.[reply]

And if I could ask you something; I've been working for a month now on my first real article, Zoya Phan. I got extremely lucky, as the person who created this article, Mark Farmaner (the user's name was Mfarmaner, not a wild leap of the imagination), personally knows Zoya and even though the article was a small stub, he'd added about 12 references. I've had to work on this article completely on my own, and I'd love if someone would give it a look. She most definitely passes notability guidelines, but I really need an objective set of eyes because I want the article to be the best it possibly can. Thanks a lot!!!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. It looks as though [[User:Alvations] has now radically shortened the page so the Areas of Evaluation section is now much shorter. If you think it needs more work, it would be very welcome. I personally thought having the extra information was a good thing, but I am a firm inclusionist and a researcher in the field, so it is hard to be objective. I will try to add Reception or Criticism section later on, when I find a good secondary source.

I had a look at the Zoy Phan article, it looked good to me (although I didn't check any of the citations). I made a couple of very minor formatting/wording changes. Note that some of the references appear twice (once as citations and then in a list). I wasn't sure if that was deliberate or not, so didn't change them.

To respond to both your comments; first, the extra information is fine, it's just a matter of how it's worded. I'll have some time this afternoon to work on it; this is something I do a lot with articles on NPP, so it's not a big deal. It looks very good now, it just needs a little more work and it should be fine. As for Zoya Phan; I think what happened is that before I got there, there was no reflist template, and the people who had added refs in had just put a list at the bottom. I've been meaning to fix it, but every time I do I notice some other thing I can add or remove, and I forget to. Something else I'll have to deal with today. Thank you, I've been trying for a while to get someone to look at it, so I really appreciate it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. There are currently 349 nominations listed and 292 waiting to be reviewed. As Internet linguistics was only nominated on 14 November it may be some time before it is reviewed. Messages such as those that you posted are very likely to be ignored. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. Actually, I wasn't being impatient :-). I was trying to reverse a change where someone who had been working on the page had put a comment in the review, which wasn't actually a review. Therefore the page now says it is being reviewed, but it isn't. This is misleading. Do you know how to reset it? If so, could you? Francis Bond (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is nothing wrong in having a review page started, but I have adjusted the page counter so that a fresh page will be created when a reviewer shows up. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Francis Bond (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Bond,

I appreciate your hard work in maintaining the HG252 project. I just noticed on that page that part of the assignment for students appears to be to get their article to Good Article status before a deadline. I want to let you know, though, that the Good Article nomination process takes several weeks—because of the backlog Jezhotwells mentioned above, after an article is nominated it usually takes at least 2 weeks before anyone even starts reviewing it, and the review itself may take a week or two. Therefore, I am concerned that your students will not be able to meet this requirement in the allotted time; there appears to be a lot of last-minute editing and nominating taking place today, but editing on Wikipedia (particularly editing to meet content standards such as the Good Article or Featured Article criteria) takes time.

I have a linguistic background and have written several good articles and featured articles on linguistic topics (see User:Rjanag/Assessed articles) so I am willing to answer questions you and your students may have. Unfortunately I'm pretty busy in real life right now so I probably won't have time to do any substantive reviewing or content editing other than minor Manual of Style copyediting.

Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day,

Thanks for the comment, and thanks also for your firm but polite corrections to some of the edits. Re: the Good Article status, we realized that we would not get the feedback in time, and changed our internal goal to "getting articles to the level of Good Article", without necessarily getting them reviewed in time. We only have a 12 week semester at NTU, which doesn't leave a lot of time for the feedback process. My hope is that the students will keep working on the articles even after the assessment, if not, then I will take the responsibility of responding to reviews.

BTW, I am a fan of the Chinese classifier page, one day I hope to get the Japanese page to the same level.Francis Bond (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your comment. On a complicated article that has almost no references like "kendo" it is much easier for me to make a list of references first.....then I make changes or add references to accurate text that just needs a reference. Finding good usable references can take some time and storing them on the talk page works quite well for future editing. Once a good amount of reference material is established an editor can open up the talk page with the listed references and at the same time have the article page open so that the article can be adjusted and references added as needed. Many of the references that are listed on the "kendo" article are not good references for various reasons ( as you noted). It will take some time to figure out the best way to make this article an accurate picture of kendo instead of a lot of unverified text that no one can trust because they can not see were the information came from. As I (or anyone else) fixes a section the "reference needed" tags on that section will be removed. After all the sections are gone through it will be easy for anyone to add further info to the references as long as no one protests the changes. If you have some knowledge (like the most current rules!!) add them with a note to the talk section reference list and I will read them and use the information to update the article unless you want to tackle that section. This article has been unreferenced for some time and it will take some time to bring it up to date Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ffbond. I see what you mean. The numerous and frequent edits by Kontoreg make it difficult to improve or edit his/her contribution. Some of it is factual, but I can't help but think - is it relevant to the activity? I'll have a look at what Kontoreg has contributed, to see if I can de-politicise his edits and will resume visiting the article more frequently. Thanks for the heads up. Were you in Au? If you are who I think you could be, we have some mutual kendo friends. CheersKendo 66 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

I do not have a problem if you think that Naginata as a category is relevant. I did not think anyone was really interested in the category (and other martial arts categories) other than adding more unreferenced material. The funny thing is that much of the unreferenced material comes right out of a book which the editor did not take the time to reference, thanks for the note. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When an article is just a short little blurb little or no references is not a problem, but with many articles now having been expanded so much, the longer they go unreferenced the harder it is to rein them in. It becomes much easier for people to hide personal opinion and trivia in these lengthy unreferenced messes. One of the biggest complaints I hear from people trying to use wikipedia is the lack of references, they are never quite sure if they will be quoting actual researched information or just some bunk. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ffbond, I'm not sure if this WP:GAN is one of your school projects, but the nominators appear to have been inactive since November 2010.

I've now reviewed it at Talk:Linguistic competence/GA1 and my decision, which needs to be made soon, is to either fail it or place it "On Hold"; it's not a "pass" at present. Would a "hold" be of use to the school project? Pyrotec (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the contact. The class project finished, but we will try to respond to the review (even if my students don't I will). However, a week may be a bit short. Could we get it held for a fortnight or so? Francis Bond (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a template, hence the "week". I'm happy with a fortnight, or so, provided that process is being made. Pyrotec (talk)

Some progress will definitely be made next week. Francis Bond (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ffbond. I am interested in improving the forensic linguistics article and satisfying multiple issues tag over the lede. You made edit: [1]. Thats fine and your input is very welcome. I will start a discussion section in the talkpage. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented in the AFD for this article last month, I thought you might want to know its back at AFD again this month. [2] Dream Focus 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at it as someone seems to be trying to delete it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.148.90 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

155.69.2.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Bigbens69". The reason given for Bigbens69's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Drmies (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Autoblock cleared. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that this is the shared IP address for a large university (NTU) with thousands of users.

Good to see another contributor to his article. If SFL is your thing, you might consider joining the SFL taskforce. Thanks. Tony (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible These templates don't have a field for belief, so I can't substitute it. Most of those claims were unsubstantiated anyway and I shuffled around some of them into the bodies of the articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you re-included links to The Online Citizen, which is a "community" blog run in Singapore. Blogs cannot be generally be considered as reliable sources of information. I strongly recommend that you re-acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and identifying reliable sources before editing further. Your changes have been reverted. If you still wish to contend that "The Online Citizen" blog is a reliable source, please initiate a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for discussing this. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and identifying reliable sources. In all of the cases I re-included, the Online Citizen was being used either as a source about online opinions in Singapore, in which case it is, in my opinion, a permissable primary source, or in one case it was quoting easily verifiabale information from elsewhere, which I took the trouble to verify. The Online Citizen has in fact already been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_96#electronic_Singapore_press_sources) and the verdict of the somewhat limited discussion was that it is OK for limited use. If you have specific objections to the three articles in question, i.e. you think that the information is false, or contradicted by some other source, then please let me know. Otherwise, I will re-include the information in a few days, as it is both useful and relevant to the articles in question. Francis Bond (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. From my experience working on Wikipedia for over six years, in the capacity of both an editor and an administrator, I have come to understand that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and that it cannot entertain blogs (blogging platforms, community blogs) as sources for our articles. Limited use, in these circumstances, would only entail use of these sources on articles about themselves (if they exist) as primary sources. If you cannot bring yourself to trust my judgement, I would recommend that you initiate a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard before proceeding with the re-inclusion of the links on our project. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! You are cordially invited to a meetup Tuesday evening (tomorrow; 4 September). Sorry about the short notice. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Mr. Bond! Do you remember me, Ramzy Muliawan, from the LangCamp? Please support Minangkabau Wikipedia request in Incubator. Thanks! SpartacksCompatriot 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis. Thanks for your comments re edits by editor X. I should say that I know very little about Kendo, and I'm afraid I don't have time to seriously monitor the article.

I have however looked back into X's editing history & their talk page. At one time, I had issues with them because they wouldn't leave ESs, & weren't prepared to discuss anything. They seem to have greatly improved their demeanour now, though. There's a good ES usage, and I note that, most encouragingly, X is prepared to discuss things - even collaborate - as evidenced in the Kendo Talk page.

Given X's preparedness to discuss things on occasions, I could only think - at this stage - of asking them on their talk page if they are prepared to discuss certain concerns. Their reply (or absence) to a polite request may be telling?

Sorry but I may not be much more help. Good luck though, Trafford09 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Francis. I'm impressed by your contributions to Wikipedia, esp. recently re Kendo & related articles, and their Talk pages, where you've been seeking views, collaboration & consensus. May I also applaud you open usage of your own user page. Hence:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For painstakingly seeking consensus on Kendo & related articles. Trafford09 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks <blush>. I am trying to bring the spirit of 平常心 to my editing :-). Francis Bond (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do here. The edits on Japanese martial arts are bordering on the destructive. Any comments.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should nominate Kontoreg for a topic ban. I am afraid I am too busy to do it myself (and don;t know the technical details of how to), but would be happy to support someone doing it. I feel we are wasting a lot of time on someone who is not improving wikipedia, just pushing a weird obsession. Francis Bond (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I have asked administrator User talk:Yunshui for some guidence. I'll let you know - I have had enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer I got was WP:AN or (if there's an ongoing and fairly urgent issue to resolve) WP:ANI would be the best place to start. You might consider a WP:RFCU, but I should think AN would be your first port of call for such a discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - much as I don't like the idea of a ban in this case I really see no alternative but to propose one. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Topic Ban (Martial arts) for Kontoreg and comment if you will.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the initiative. Francis Bond (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, I don't know how this really works, so I hope I'm replying the right way. Thanks for your input on the Determiner Phrase article. It is actually a group project for my syntax class at my university. Every group is editing a different article pertaining to syntax. We are trying to make it a little easier to understand, but it's hard when we don't really understand it completely ourselves. I'm struggling to think of ways to simplify it or explain what we are talking about better without having to add in a whole section explaining syntax and x'-theory. Even the brackets being used to show constituency wouldn't make sense to anyone who isn't in linguistics. We are currently trying to finish it for the due date this Wednesday. We wanted to add in some images of trees, but we can't figure out how to actually get images onto Wikipedia. We also need to add in a lot more stuff about universality. We are going to use Cantonese and Italian, I believe. Thanks for the idea of using subscripts, I hadn't thought of that. I did a bunch of changes on formatting last week. One of my partners and I read your page a bit. It sounds like your work is really interesting. Jocelyndw (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Professor Bond

We acknowledge that linguistics landscape could potentially overlap with languages of Singapore, hence instead of a new page, we are merely adding an entirely new segment to it. Our key focus here is on the inconsistencies that are found different to the constitutional laws based on regional or event-based needs; a topic not covered by the main authors of the page. We feel that this can add a different perspective to the state of affairs of linguistics in Singapore.

Yours truly Daniel Seoh

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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The article Yori Bertin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp/dated)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ffbond. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ffbond. 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Benjamin Marius Telders has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad about the COI part, I was hunting down links to the domain as there was another editor doing random insertion of various articles then. As for the content, my view is that it doesn't give further information about the film. It would do nicely for a BLP though. – robertsky (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The whole of Section II is a discussion of the restoration of the film, Section IV gives a synopsis/review, so there is quite a lot of extra information. Therfore I think it is very relevant. I have added back it as an external reference. Francis Bond (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]