User talk:Agent 86

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

Welcome To Agent 86's Talk Page

* Please Leave Your Comments Below: Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

* My Talk Page Discussion Practice: I know there's some suggested guideline on this point, but out of sheer laziness, until I look it up again (per my procrastination policy), this will be my practice for now: I will respond to any questions, queries, comments, etc. on this page, so as to maintain the flow and not have to flip between talk pages to follow the conversation. (Okay, I've since looked it up, but see my user page re: procrastination.)

Archives
Archives
11 February 2006 – 31 May 2006: Archive the First 01 June 2006 - 23 August 2006: Archive the Second 23 August 2006 - 23 December 2006: Archive the Third 23 December 2006 – 22 March 2007: Archive the Fourth 22 March 2007 - 18 June 2011: Archive the Fifth 18 June 2011 - ???: Archive the Sixth

---

Chopped Redux

I just cleaned out the trivia, and was pretty savage. I've also started a discussion on the article's talk page. I saw your response to the last message I left once it disappeared into your archive, so I didn't have a chance to reply. You made a good point about the tableized (is that word? It should be!) articles, but something needs to be done to at least simplify and make more concise the presentation of the ingredients, judges and outcomes. And then there's the issue of overlinking! Drmargi (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, Chief. I noticed that I had four years' worth of material on the last iteration of my talk page, so I figured I was wayyyyy overdue for archivisation of it.Agent 86 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gad. I feel like Maxwell Smart should join the discussion. We're totally cool. I just wanted you to know why I hadn't responded. Do you ever use a Talkback when you reply to a comment on your talk page? Drmargi (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I should get used to doing that (subject, of course, to my personal procrastination policy, whatever that is or was, I haven't gotten around to re-reading it).Agent 86 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: DONE, DONE, DONE! I left a message on the show's talk page, but the whole article is now in table form. I've currently commented out Season 8 and the last episode of Season 7 until they can be sourced. It won't take me long. It sure looks better in table form. Over to you to review it!! --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN

Please stop inserting hyphens where they are not needed. See the fourth bullet point under WP:HYPHEN #3. Chris the speller ^yack 08:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Agent 86. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Katrina Dunn

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In

this user decided they are same. Then some other bot linked them all. So if you think that's not correct, you should remove those links from sv.wikipedia and all other connected wikis (not only en.wiki), otherwise, bots will continue to link those two articles, all bots, not only mine :). Thank you for reporting the issue, stay well :) --Dalibor Bosits ^© 07:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Muir lead section

Hi Agent 86:

This ain't agent 99, more like Hymie the Robot here. Anyway, I just wanted to remind you about two important elements when dealing with a lead section, or opening paragraph, of a biography. One, there is no need for inline citations as explained in WP:LEADCITE, because the information in the lead section is also in the body section of the article, and cited. Two, putting place of birth in the first sentence, where the dates are listed, is not standard, and only should be included in the paragraph proper WP:Lead and MOS:BIO.

Other than that, I'm glad that you are actually citing information, as usually these kinds of articles are written from someone's "memories". I usually end-up trying to find citations for articles that interest me to get them to GA or FA status. B.T.W., the sources cited do not indicate that Muir "self-designated" his senatorial seat. The Globe and Mail article that you cite, does not mention that, other than he was an MP from Cape Breton —The Sydneys. Do you have a source that explicitly states that he did indeed get to create his own seat? I have access to both The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Montreal Gazette, and The Ottawa Citizenfrom that period, and they don't seem to mention that he did that.

If I sound too critical, I don't mean to be, as I think it is great that you are citing sources, even when its not needed: most people do the opposite. Take care.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly; however, I don't think reverting all my changes were appropriate, because I did more than edit the lead. Moreover, not all the info in the lead paragraph is repeated below. I also note that there were edits by an intervening editor, but your edit summary ignores that you reverted another editor as well. That all said, my interest in the topic is completed, so I'll leave the article to you.

If I too may make a suggestion, please use the “Show Preview” button rather than saving every edit all the time. It makes for a rather long change history of the article with the number of edits listed in the "recent changes" page. Happy editing! Agent 86 (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, The Globe and Mail article does not call it "self-selected". Please stop putting that in the article, as that is not what his Parliamentary file, nor the media call it. As well, as I pointed out earlier, please refrain from double citing, it is only required if you have made a statement that combines distinct information from more than one source. If you want to see The 1979-03-29 Globe article, I can email it to you.Abebenjoe (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Read the Constitution. There is no such thing as a senate designation outside of Quebec. All non-Quebec senate seats are, by definition, self-designated. Muir's choice is set out in his parliamentary biography. Agent 86 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Dating Guy

I'm not sure your comment at Talk:The Dating Guy was that helpful, but it's certainly more constructive than the nonsense at Talk:Least_I_Could_Do#Request_for_comments. It's a sad saga that includes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC. Toddst1 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Asahi Baseball Team

I've noticed you opposed my rename of Asahi Tigers to Asahi (baseball team). I've stated my reasons for the rename on the talk page. Your response is appreciated. Rawr (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Turtles

Why is this considered overlinking at Brynwood Partners?842U (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Among other things, you don't need the same term linked several times in an article. Read WP:OVERLINK. Agent 86 (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, I hadn't realized it was linked in the intro.842U (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1957

Hi Agent, I'm unsure why you want a one-para lead; to me, it's much more comfortable as it is now. Please avoid edit-warring about it: people will listen to any reasonable argument there. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't mind people disagreeing about subjective matters like this one, but I'd appreciate it if you'd Assume good faith before dropping loaded statements such as "edit-warring", particularly when it was another editor who started the reversion process without first taking it to the talk page. While you may hold a contrary opinion about how it did or did not improve the article, I took the trouble to set out the reasons for my edit. Agent 86 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

UBC Law

You've removed a few additions to UBC Law - could you clarify your reasoning? The article is currently a stub, and I'm trying to flesh out the business law concentration and the National Centre for Business Law information. The NCBL is a major institute housed at UBC Law. You have said the link is "promotional". Could you clarify why? The NCBL is not a profit-seeking institution; it's simply a centre for excellence housed at UBC, which offers specialization in business law topics, and opportunities for integration with the business school at UBC, not to mention the business community. It's a really cool emerging initiative, and it ought to be on the Wikipedia entry. Emtyson (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's not for profit doesn't make it any less promotional. The link seems to serve no other purpose than to promote the organization - it's not being used as a source, and it's not clear that it's a reliable source per policy. If National Centre for Business Law really is that significant, it might suit being elaborated upon, with reliable sources, under its own heading in the article. The oter bits of info that I've removed have no sources whatsoever (and I'm not talking about including the Chief Justices as notable alumni). One of those items is more mythical than anything. Agent 86 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I went back and compared some of the edits that were made - the Oakes test thing is definitely a myth and can't be confirmed anyway due to clerkship confidentiality. As for the source for the NCBL - that link was inserted as a source to confirm that UBC Law does, in fact, offer a business law concentration. The NCBL is *part* of UBC Law. Why is it promotional to link to specific centres within UBC Law on the UBC Law wiki page? It's not promotional, it's just saying it exists. Emtyson (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Catchphrase

Please join the discussion at the talk page for Catchphrases. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 18:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus and WP:3RR

Please have a read of WP:3RR and WP:Consensus before making any more edits to Heenan Blaikie. Mtking ^(edits) 08:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• You are the one reverting material that is verifiable, consistent with wiki-policy regarding reliable sources, and guidelines on notability. If anyone should be reading WP:3RR and WP:Consensus, I suggest it should be you, especially since you violated 3RR with your last revert. Agent 86 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well no actually, if you count you will see only three (1, 2 and 3) if you disagree then feel free to report me. Also there is nothing in any of the sources that demonstrates notability. Mtking ^(edits) 09:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Belize election

Your blind reverts and restoration make it hard to assume AGF per the distorted edit summary. Kindly discuss them first.Lihaas (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• If anything was blindly reverted, it was my original GF edits. You should also be more careful in implying the lack of GF based on a single edit. Agent 86 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Tava Smiley Revert

Regarding this revert - the editor I reverted is the indefinitely blocked Veryverser (talk · contribs), whose specialty is to troll talk pages. He's used dozens of IP addresses, but always proudly signs his name. He has no business commenting on anything here. While he is not technically banned (yet), it is standard practice to remove his comments, and a great many editors have done so over the years. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's a pretty serious unsupported allegation. In any event, "standard practice" doesn't supplant policy. At the very least, you should have provided an explanation in the edit summary for removing a rather innocuous talk page statement. Agent 86 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is serious, and it is hardly unsupported. He signs his name not because he is an imposter, but because he is ignoring his indefinite block. You are correct about the fact that I should have left a better edit summary; sorry for the confusion there. I can assure you that the majority of his comments are removable per WP:NOTFORUM, plus the fact that his comments are disruptive and that he is not allowed to make them as an indefinitely blocked user who has been trolling the site for years. Have a great day! Doc talk 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In a Fix

The article In a Fix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-remarkable television series. Google and Yahoo search yield no real result for this.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of In a Fix for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article In a Fix 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/In a Fix 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. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of islands of British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunshine Coast (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) 10:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Magnetic Tower of Hanoi

Hi, about a year and a half ago I edited an article by this name, which was [subsequently deleted]. At the time you recommended to keep the article, though in the end it was deleted .

I've finally got around to re-editing the article and addressing the issues that were raised, specifically: I've added more references, and I've added a complete new section about another work relating to the same problem.

The revised article is [here]

I would like the article to be reconsidered. Could you tell me how do I go about this? Is there any Wikipedia procedure I can follow?

Thanks, David Davidm0508 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the former article: Magnetic Tower of Hanoi. Click on it and you'll find instructions on how to proceed. As you're more or less recreating the same article, you'll see that he instructions suggest that you should first contact the administrator (Wizardman) who closed the AfD discussion and deleted the article. Agent 86 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• It seems that Wizardman is no longer active in this respect (according to his home page - as of January 2013). Before this I did ask him to take a look, and he had a few comments/questions which I answered, but since then he appears not to be active. So in truth I'm a bit stuck. I would very much like to upload the article again and let it be judged in its revised version. I think most of the original comments and objections have been answered. Do you have any suggestions how to proceed?Davidm0508 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As the original version has been deleted, it's hard to comment. If you think you've adequately addressed the comments in the AfD, go ahead and create a new article on the topic. On the new talk page, set out your reasons why you believe the new version of the article dispels the criticism in the AfD. The worst that can happen is that it's renominated at AfD and you can make your case once again. Agent 86 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Agent 86; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons have been put back, against MOS, in "List of Iron Chef America Episodes"

Late in February you were significantly involved in a discussion on this article's talkpage about following MOS by removing the flag icons. Someone waited a month and went back and put them in again today. Just a heads-up. 24.168.19.34 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Chopped episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tres Cruces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Catholic]] [[Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of St. Catherine of Siena|Dominican Sisters]])<ref>[http://www.santodomingo.edu.uy/home.php Dominican Sisters]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vancouver Fringe Festival

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vancouver Fringe Festival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of w00tstock shows for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of w00tstock shows 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 w00tstock shows until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of w00tstock shows, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jason Finn and Eric Schwartz. 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) 09:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

British Columbia Youth Parliament

Hello Agent 86,

I wanted to thank you for your edits and hard-work editing the British Columbia Youth Parliament article. I was the person who added the table of house leaders and award winners. I'm currently a member of BCYP, and I hope to work with you in the future to improve the article.

Canucksfan97 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just curious if I may ask what your connection to BCYP is. Thank you in advance.

Canucksfan97 (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Agent 86. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Agent 86. 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)

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_4McJJtxSyGZMIGV&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Agent 86. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Agent 86. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clean Sweep

The article Clean Sweep has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for sources since 2009 with none forthcoming

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Shout-out to Penelope Trunk

I have largely abandoned editing Wikipedia and haven't logged in in almost three years. However, I stumbled across this recent blog post by Penelope Trunk: Love Letter To Wikipedia Editor Agent 86. Just posting this here to show that I saw it and appreciated it very much. Agent 86 (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)