User talk:Andromedean

City of London
Hi, regarding your recent addition to City of London, please see and discuss on the talk page. Thanks --TBM10 (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Signatures
I have removed your edit at WP:Signatures because the information is misleading. It would possibly be worth adding something along those lines, but it needs to be correct. See the history of the page to read the edit summary that I used to revert the change, and see WT:Signatures for my comment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Be aware of three-revert rule
As you may not be aware that there is a three-revert rule. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. As it appears that you are engaged in a pretty intense debate on the issue of the use of technology in the Olympics, losing the editing privilege would be a huge loss to you at this point. Use the revert rule with caution. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this, I was unaware, being an occasional user. I have attempted to add a banner on just to indicate it is under dispute and to suggest discussing it first, because someone else tried to remove it! --Andromedean (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have left a note at LoLo Lympian's talk page
 * Oh, BTW, you might want to consider using indentation when replying to other user's comments--each colon (":") represents one indentation. Cheers! (Showmebeef (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

August 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ba se me nt 12 (T.C) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You've been asked several times to stop accusing people of ulterior motives, please don't do so again. Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 03:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Basement: I believe you are misintepreting rules and by complaining making it appear as if I'm being uncivil and unreasonable, indeed this message itself would be used as uncivil by your definition. I've had the patience of a saint with the antics used on the Contoversy article, but there is a limit for anyone, so I have requested assistance to ensure the rules are being complied with and not overzealously intepreted. May I request in turn that you read the rules, apply them fairly, and ensure editors hard work is treated with respect.--Andromedean (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Remember you mentioned that we might need a higher authority to resolve the conflicts encountered while editing the article? Well, there appears to be one. With the discussion on talk page going in circles, some editor suggested to try to use WP:DRN. It allow disputed parties to present their case on the board, while 3rd party volunteer(s) can help to inject some neutral observations and suggestions to settle the dispute. Would you like to join in this board to debate the case? If yes, I will add your name when I file the case. Otherwise I will just bring this against S&P. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, showmebeef, yes add my name.

I may have already tried this, I sent an Email to 'ArbCom-l' with the subject, and received the reply "Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision.

Nothing has happened yet, so perhaps I need to join? --Andromedean (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that you can use only one form of dispute resolution. See the notice you just got below--there is an RfC filed by S&P, so none of the other resolution methods can be used--I don't know if he's done that on purpose or just by accident. So here's a catch-21 situation: S&P has deleted a lot of the article, started a revert war, and went on to RfP board asking for a "long term full protection" for which I got a 3RR warning. It appears that there are a lot of nasty politics involved; plus some knowledge of how Wiki works certainly helps. I think an administrator needs to be involved. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC))


 * Frightening isn't it? One has to give 'credit' to Sport and Politics though, he does lives up to his name!

I am attempting to revert to another version, with justification in the talk section. So far I have been reluctant to do this frequently, however since Sport and Politics has removed all the controversial stuff, an arbitrator won't be likely to spend time finding all the relevent material buried under a sea of edits! --Andromedean (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN case on Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Hello! I closed your dispute resolution request Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics as it appears that another dispute resolution mechanism — RfC is currently in process. Using several means of dispute resolution is discouraged on Wikipedia; see WP:FORUMSHOP for more details. Note: if RfC won't help with dispute, feel free to file another request. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (DRN volunteer) 09:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, that WP:DRN deals with content disputes only, leaving conduct issues to WP:WQA (to be closed soon) and WP:AN/I (for cases when administrators' intervention is necessary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (DRN volunteer) 09:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have closed your duplicate request. Per Czarkoff above, your filing appears to be solliciting outside help for you to win the debate, a form of forum shopping. The RFC must be concluded either by a natural resolution, 30 days expiring from RFC start, or an uninvolved administrator evaluating the consensus early by a request at WP:AN/RFC. Pending that happening, DRN must decline the request for intervention. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hasteur (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Information on use of technology in cycling somewhere on Wikipedia, but where does it belong?
Hi. Just thought I should let you know that I am not opposed to including at least some of the information you have provided somewhere on Wikipedia. I see you have also tried at Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. While your information doesn't match the current title and scope of the article it seems likely that it will be moved to "Doping in sport". If it is moved you may boldly add info on technology doping. As technology doping has its own article it would probably be best if information specific to one sport remains in the specific article, with the section in the main doping article being a more general introduction. You will notice that there is currently no information on cycling in the "technology doping" article. Your sources demonstrate that something ought to be added to that article. You can also try to add something to the the article on the sport, but this may need a more general approach (i.e. not mentioning specific teams, but mention the general use of technology and the rules regarding the use technology). I have responded to your most recent comment in the discussion, by the way. If you respond to my comment there I will try to get back to you as soon as possible, but I'm rather busy this weekend. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Apology at WQA
I will not apologize to you. Your behavior has been outright irresponsible and not in line with Wiki-etiquette nor the common practices of Wikipedia. As you've demanded a apology of me, I will not be demanding one from you for making a general nuisance of yourself and sapping the time of multiple volunteers. Kindly see your way to having your attitude adjusted otherwise I see your time at Wikipedia being short and ending in a disruptive end. Hasteur (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Read the final part of this comment. If you imply that any editor (IP or otherwise) in the discussion on that talk page (including the WP:WQA side-discussion) is biased, has an agenda or is trying to censor Wikipedia, no matter how minor the implication, I will report all diffs where you have made such accusations in the discussion to WP:ANI. Obviously, if you were to report your unsubstantiated suspicion there I will not report you, as you will in effect have done so yourself. In that case I will, of course, defend myself. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your irritation at my comment on the 3rd DRN filing
You didn't display 100% honesty by linking in the filing to the archived DRN threads. I added them so all editors understand the context of what's going on and how it appears to me that you're attempting to make a end run around consensus to get your content added. As it's typically the filing editor's responsibility to post only in the statement of the dispute section and not to be participating in infighting amongst the people making statements, it would be best if you striked your secondary comment as it does not pertain to the dispute but instead is adressing a single editor. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Simplfy this please
I can't seem to locate the disputed contents involved in this dispute. This may because of the length of time involved. Please add the section that is being disputed in either your opening statement or to the discussion to make this easier for volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist It is the same dispute you have volunteered for, thank you for this. Is there any reason the volunteer has changed or is this typical during DRNs? --Andromedean (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you referring to Wikiquette I have no idea where this has been moved to, but I felt it was inflaming the issue and counterproductive so I pledged not to get involved it it again.

The Wikiquette incident was an attempt to report an editor by myself for extensive Wikilawyering, removal of sections without comment, and other tactics. However the title of the complaint was changed by the same person so the attack was skilfully deflected on me, which incited me, and allowed the editor to evade the questions I posed.

To be honest the way this issue was treated has filled me with extreme bitterness, so I vowed not to get involved with Wikiquette again. However, perhaps after the dispute resolution in completed, I need to raise the whole issue at incidents since it has profound ramifications to how the site is run. I still have a record of my original complaint, but perhaps this is best left until after the dispute resolution is concluded as it is more relevant to how editors with conflicting views are handled.--Andromedean (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, very common to have more than one volunteer and sometimes one will bow out and another step in. The Men's Rights dispute is one current example. What I was hoping to have someone posts, was the actual prose and references that are in dispute from the article that started the whole issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I will attempt to summarise the issue more clearly, with what I think is most under most dispute, although as far some authors are concerned it seems to be just about everything I have written about the subject. --Andromedean (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. There is a current proposal gaining support. Please add your input.Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Another proposal has been further refined. Please comment when you get a chance.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider the version Sport and Politics has accepted
Please reconsider the version Sport and Politics has accepted to avoid the dispute going to mediation. It would be like starting all over again. You cannot reasonably argue that you have made greater concessions than he has if you accept that version. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Sport and Politics has been playing the system so vigorously and so out of step with reality it would be like compromising to that a white object was grey when it was his claim was that it was black, but that wouldn't make it true. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide unbiased information based on truth. In their own words it is not a democracy, and if it was I would insist on bringing in French views in the interest of balance.--Andromedean (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The French views are included (e.g. Gregory Bauche). Not a democracy means we must agree by discussion, not vote. The current suggestion requires close to equal concessions from both sides (remember that Sport and Politics was completely opposed to including anything at all). Please read through it. We gain nothing by moving on to the next form of dispute resolution and I think we are close to a solution or a permanent failure to find one. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant French editors. Incidentally the quote about the bikes being legal is a quote from Chris Boardman the technical director at the time of the Olympics, so that is three quotes I have agreed to include from him for 'balance'. I only wish to have a single quote directly from the UCI rules, surely this is reasonable? --Andromedean (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made a suggestion I hope you'll find acceptable. If you want to reference more rules I'm fine with that as well. While it was Chris Boardman who stated that the bikes were legal in the interview, he clearly said that it was the UCI who had made that decision. We cannot say that this is his opinion, or that by adding it we are giving his personal views undue weight. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of indentation
Hi, this is just a friendly reminder for you to pay attention to the use of indentation when replying to other editor's comments--they become a task with messed up intentions. you can use the "preview" button to check your post to see if the formatting is correct before you publish them. I know, sometimes the devil is in the details, but without them life could become a little miserable.

Also, I would recommend if there is a separate subject you want to discuss (that is different than the current subject of the thread), just add a new section with ===== subject =====, where the level of heading is increased with each additional "='. This would make the discussion focused and future editing easier.

Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

On the irrelevancy of whether home advantage is true or false
I have responded to your comment on Showmebeef's talk. I did not want to add something on this there, but it is rather disheartening that you still have not gotten the point repeated in the headline here.
 * Home advantage is included as a British claim, not fact.
 * That the British cyclists mentioned it is sourced.
 * The claims of the British cycling team is included to balance with the claims of the French cycling team.
 * The wording should not imply that home advantage is true, nor should it imply that the claim of cheating is true.
 * The wording does not in any way imply that home advantage is true, nor does it imply that the claim of cheating is true.
 * Case in point: The wording includes the phrase "possible explanation".


 * Both claims should be, and are, attributed to whichever side made them.
 * As the claims of both sides are included as claims attributed to one side of the controversy, and because they are included because they are claims, it does not matter that neither side has conclusive evidence.
 * In sections or articles about a controversy both sides of the controversy must always be included.
 * From the above it follows with necessity that the British claim of home advantage should be included even though there may be no evidence for it.

This point has been made repeatedly, including in responses to your comments, and you have never responded to it or taken it in. While you commendably have agreed to some mention of home advantage, you have continued to discuss as though what matters is whether it is true or not. This makes it seem as though you haven't read or considered the comments (including at least one from the volunteer) pointing out that whether home advantage exists or not is irrelevant in the current case. As I probably won't take part in the discussion on the minutiæ of wording, I'll say good bye now. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the warning above
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am sorry. The comment you left on User:Showmebeef's talk page is unacceptable. Your repeated accusations require community attention. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Private note on version
88s Version --Andromedean (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48
Regarding this, I understand the exact point you are making, but I am sure that HiLo48 does not. He will either take it at face value and provide a list of all those who have adopted positions contrary to his own, or he will be puzzled because he cannot understand it. Either way, it's not all that helpful. Finding appropriate wording for closure would be helpful. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I hope you don't mind but I have hatted the discussion you've been involved with on this page. The section there is for discussing Hasteur's closure proposal and it seemed to mne that the discussion was making any sort of closure less, rather than more, likely. I completely understand that your views there are strongly held but I don't think you're going to get a resolution that is any more satisfactory by keeping teh discussion going. Better to let Hasteur close and see where we go next. I hope that's OK with you; if not then of course you can revert my hatting but I'd need some persuading that any good would come of it. I'm posting the same message on the talk page of all editors who have been involved in the hatted discussion. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Kim I try not to have any views other than the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Neither do I enjoy arguments with Sports, so it is a blessing for it to be hatted (that's the technical term that's what they did to stop the other discussion), but the comments often compel me to answer and correct any misleading statements.
 * If you agree with the following Wiki policy The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: and could get HiLo to agree to them, it would get me out of the way which might be a more practical solution for everyone. I am somewhat in the dark why Administrators can't point these out and save time for everyone.  Without conforming to basic guidelines there is anarchy and arguments roll on forever wasting time. Perhaps if this rule has been flouted it should just be sent to Administrator noticeboard incidents, but I have lost faith.


 * Of course my original comment is highly relevant to closure so it is unclear why that part was hatted, unless you have some alternative mechanism in mind. --Andromedean (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern wasn't particularly with your initial comment, but with the two-way tit-for-tat you got into with Sports. Since neither of you seemed willing to concede the last word to the other, I hatted the entire exchange. It was the only active part of the discussion which Hasteur had previously pointed out had fizzled out quite a long time previously. And it was obvious to me that neither of you was going to bring the other round to your point of view. I won't respond further here as I don't want to prolong this whole discussion in yet another venue, but I do understand that my explanation here won't satisfy you in the least! However you can at least have the last word on 'this' exchange. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  08:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

ANI on S&P
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding S&P's editing behavior which you might be interested. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior_of_.22Sports_and_Politics.22_warrants_admin_attention.21. Thank you. Showmebeef (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

High-tech warfare
I discovered something in the source, and have changed the wording accordingly. Hope you'll find the change acceptable. Note that it is closer to your version than to Sport and Politics's. "British team" in her version is factually incorrect. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

wishing the best for you
I know that there is drama going on between you and sports and politics, but i think that maybe this proposal may be helpful to either stop or stifle the drama, because i've seen a plethora of cases similar in nature to this one and they usually end either in a block, topic ban or an indef. Because i really would not like to see either of you get any of those three on you, my suggestion is that you and sports & politics stay either away from the 2012 olympics article for a short while, or else just stay away from each other. I don't clame to have any special status, i'm just offering this advice to you two based on what i've seen go on on an/i over the past 5 to 7 years. i also posted this suggestion on s& p's talk page. best wishes, 199.101.61.190 (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A word of suggestion
As there is an ANI regarding S&P's behavior going on, may I suggest that it is important to keep the conversation less heated, and more on substance. I know it's hard to maintain a composure when in the heat of an exchange, but it behoove us all to try to do so, me included. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was preparing to posts diffs as per Tparis' request. However, it is true that it may quickly degenerate into an argument which could easily result in closure. If you think this will inflame the situation I will refrain for the time being and see what you wish to add.  I may come along with this later though if you don't mind. --Andromedean (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheep farming in Wales
You may want to try disabling Visual Editor, as I've done - go to Preferences > Gadgets > Editing, and check the first box. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2018
Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR violation
You originally authored this content on 10:45, 1 September 2018, it was reverted on 08:01, 3 September 2018 and 10:17, 3 September 2018, you re-instated it on 11:37, 3 September 2018. The content is clearly within scope of ARBPIA. Per WP:ARBPIA "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." - which you violated with your revert 3 hours and 36 minutes (and 1 hour 20 minutes for the second bit) after you were reverted. Do kindly please self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * there seems to be widespread violations of this type by other authors, yet everyone including yourself appear relatively unconcerned. Could you explain why?  Do authors have special privileges? Also, is their consensus that the article is clearly within scope of ARBPIA. Per WP:ARBPIA?  Perhaps you can point me to it. (Andromedean (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC))
 * I have notified other users as well. I generally caution prior to taking a case to AE. The content you authored (with the 2014 Gaza war, etc.) quite clearly falls within "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.".Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked several people's talk pages and I can't find any e.g. Nedrutland. I'm getting increasingly concerned about the judicious use of 'rules' for some people and not others.  Shouldn't there be some sort of a notice on the article itself so new editors are informed? (Andromedean (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC))
 * You appear to have blatantly violated this restriction yourself. on the 18:13 8 September. I have never knowingly violated any rules, and have NEVER auto-reverted anything in this article within the 1 day limit, or at all up to this time. In contrast you are obviously familiar with the rule, seem to think it apples to others not yourself, and how to use it to gain favourable editing privileges, so there's no excuse for this.  You removed more text than added some back in, to effectively revert it, I guess you believe this gets around the rules of reverting?  Could you please ensure the text I placed in is replaced promptly, and don't game the system. Thank you. (Andromedean (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC))

1RR vio
this and this from 12 September are 1RR violations (for content you previously attempted to introduce on 10 September - ). Please self revert. Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I may have misinterpreted the rules so I've asked for assistance, and will revert anything that is inappropriate on 3rd party advice. There are various issues relating to this I've attempted to raise with you but have received no response.  Please realise that everyone isn't as familiar with the rules as yourself, and we need more dialogue. (Andromedean (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC))

Reverting My RSN Edits?
Why are you reverting my edits to RSN ? -Obsidi (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obsidi, I had no intention of doing so, if it was reverted; sorry if it happened. That page is acting erratically in my browser at the moment --Andromedean (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an affiliation with Media Bias Fact Check?
You cite this website all the time on the RS noticeboard. And it's not a good website at all for determining reliability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None at all, I only discovered it a few months ago. I just can't find anything else which amalgamates International independent fact check sources in one place If you have anything else, or anything better, lets use that. What have you found, and why so biased against a fact checking site?

Alert
The usage of EI is unacceptable in WP:BLP per WP:RSP if you continue with such edits you will be reported --Shrike (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear I expanded on the findings of a QC quoted in the EI (not the EIs opinion), which was already referenced by someone else. This was purely for the sake of balance. I added this to point out that David Miller hasn't been totally exonerated! I've also stated on the [| talk page] of the article why an exception may be justified here using a WP rule. I don't think this kind of threat is warranted, please try to discuss it in a friendly manner on the talk page, I am reasonable and will change anything with good reason.--Andromedean (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is the most important policy if something its not reported by mainstream sources that it shouldn't be in the article . Please remove EI it cannot be used in WP:BLP Shrike (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)