User talk:Communal t

Reassessment requests
Hey, quick question about the reassessment requests you put up today- I noticed that you haven't actually edited the lists in question. The only reason that matters is that while the only real requirement for answering a reassessment request is to pick a rating, I (as pretty much the only person who answers them) like to give some suggestions as to how to improve the article. If you're not editing the lists in question, then that'd be a bunch of work for nothing, so I'd skip it if you don't need it. Were you looking for suggestions or just a rating? (They're all going to be List/Low, by the way- the VG project doesn't grade lists beyond List/Featured List.) -- Pres N  05:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for responding! Don't worry about giving suggestions, I just thought the ratings should be changed as they were all given non-list ratings before. I would have done it myself, but I didn't want to bypass the reassessment process, and felt that a second opinion from someone with more experience might be helpful. If I find any others, should I put them up for reassessment, or is there a better course of action that you'd recommend? Communal t (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The reassessment process is really only used for people looking for an outside opinion an an article; the vast majority of people just set the rating to whatever they think it should be. Well, the vast majority of people don't bother with the rating at all, but you know what I mean. Feel free, if you see an article/list that you think has the wrong rating, to change it yourself; if you're not sure about something or you have a question (or if you'd just rather have someone else do it), you can ask me or use the reassessment tag to get a second opinion (or post at WT:VG to get a wider audience). -- Pres N  06:20, 15 June 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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)