User talk:DeCausa/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, DeCausa! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page


 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Marek. 69  talk  00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Constituent Countries
Howdy Decausa. It would be such a nice NPoV effort, if editors who prefer adminsitrative parts of the United Kingdom & editors who prefer countries of the United Kingdom, would come togther & agree on consituent countries of the United Kingdom. If that happend? "What a wonderful world" (to quote Louis Armstrong) it would be. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may 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) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

UK layout
Hey, I wonder if you could comment as to whether you are still in opposition to reverting back to the stable formatting on Talk:United Kingdom. Additionally, I see you've been working on Saudi Arabia. Took one look at that TOC and wanted to shut my eyes tightly and not open them again! Don't let me near that page :p (Without discussion) But in relation to that, please comment on the RFC I linked to in the UK page concerning these setups, could be very useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained myself on Talk:United Kingdom. As far as SA is concerned, this was, until I got hold of it about a month ago, more or less written by the Saudi Ministry of Information with some vandalism and POV-pushing from some Saudi IPs. I've been trying to get it into shape with some genuine information - that's been my focus. It's difficult because of continuous IP vandalism, pushing etc. At the moment the format is partly what I've done and partly what was left over from the previuos xhaos. I will put it into more of a standard format.Hope you can open your eyes now. DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you've done anything bad on Saudi, looked over it and it looked good. I am a huge fan of consistency, but there's a fine line, as not all countries are equal (by a long shot). I'm not sure what you mean by opening my eyes, could you clarify? If you're interested, this is what the FA countries looked like before all this guideline business. Germany is actually the odd one out orderwise (and number of subsectionswise). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Took one look at that TOC wanted to shut my eyes tightly and not open them again"! DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, that x.x Sorry, late at night here, and I used up all my humour earlier in the day. Well, I guess that's a prime indicator I should sleep. Good luck with the article, very interesting country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Mindbunny
Hi, So it appears you have also been targeted by the ignorance that is Mindbunny. He's asking if I could revert my revert to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Frankly I just dont want to even touch that article for fear of getting accused of joining in on the edit war. So I am seeking the opinion of a fellow RC'er? Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bped1985 (talk • contribs)

Saudi
The tag was added here. SmackBot dated it. You reverted the dating of the tag. SmackBot dated it again. Generally SmackBot does not add tags, certainly not Citation needed ones yet. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC).


 * I have removed the tag. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Your Edit Warring on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia
You are in violation of the Bold/Edit/Revert process that you yourself invoked. You stated on the Talk page that the main reason you came to the article with that material was that you didn't want it in Saudi Arabia and just needed some place to stick it. Poor reason. Multiple reasons have been given against the material you've been trying to add for the last week or two. Your argument that BRD didn't apply to you because I wasn't discussing the matter was false when you made (I explained the rejection in the edit commentary and in Talk). It is blatantly false now, since I've added considerable material to the Talk page explaining why it doesn't belong. Please stop edit warring. Mindbunny (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the talk page. You will see that I signaficantly changed the wording to respond to your comments. The new text has been there 2 weeks, in which time you and others have edited the page without removing it. Indeed, one editor tweaked the language to imporove it. You therefore need to gain consensius to remove it. Please engage seriously on the article Talk page rather than merely edit-warring. This isn't going to get you anywhere. DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have consensus and you know it. I left it there only because I had been blocked (dubiously, by the admin's own admission), and didn't want disrupt things. The admin also stated you are in violation of BRD. It's nice that you responded in Talk. You seem to think that responding in Talk is all you have to do to edit however you feel. That's not how it works. You need to collaborate and recognize that the burden is on you, the person wanting to make the change. You don't have consensus. The material you added is redundant in detail (the article already mentions Lubna Olayan, for instance), misrepresents sources, and uses weasel words. Mindbunny (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your block was long since lifted. You had ample opportunity to revert before now. You didn't. No one else has. In fact one other editor looked at it and changed the words slightly. After 2 weeks that's consensus. Lubna Olayan is used in a different context. As for misuse of sources and weasel words, you'll have to justify those comments. The most important comment back on he FA submission you made is that the article has an NPOV poblem (not lenght as you previously claimed). The article needs material like this to balance it up. DeCausa (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All that is Mindbunny
DeCausa, Thanks for the heads up on Mindbunny's Talk page. I added a few things, but frankly hold out little hope of anything changing. Mindbunny has simply hijacked the page and little gets through without Mindbunny monkeying with it. I hope, though, things improve.Leicester17 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I assumed you would've support the proposal. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. DeCausa (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been head-banging with those truth defenders for quite sometime. I doubt they could shove their precious source down my throat, any deeper. If they can't support my reasonable proposal? that article will be doomed, as far as any hopes of a solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted our conversation there, leaving just your response to my proposal, OK? I'm still walking on a tight-rope, around those articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine 'claims'
'Leave it alone' - what is the reason for this dismissive tone and arrogant attitude? My understanding is - you appointed yourself a czar of this entry? What are the grounds for that exactly? Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules, one if the milestones is WP:NPOV - that's what I'm pursuing here, nothing else. 'Claims' is a charged term - it implies demanding something you don't currently have. ‘The claims of the Eastern Roman Empire to Roman inheritance’ - these words willingly or not deligitimize the historical position of the whole Empire, not just the Empress. It's like if some king Mabutu from Mutu-Putu would be laying claims to the British crown - his arguments in the matter would be 'claims', whereas the official position of your queen Liz the Second couldn't be called that at all, since she actually has the throne. Even more so this applies to the United kingdom as a successor to the British Empire. You people can decide tomorrow the Windsors are gone and Tony Blair is your new king, it still wouldn't break the continuity of British history. I offered a neutral term here - a role. It doesn't have any bias since hardly anybody can dispute that Byzantine Empire is in fact a linear continuation of Ancient Rome and then the Eastern Roman Empire, yet it's not unconditionally categorical or one-sided. So why exactly do you keep reverting it making up new ‘reasons’ every time you do so?--Alvez3 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Country article
Hey, I like the sandbox, much better then what we have now. There's an old conversation (on pretty much the same debate as the current UK one) Requested move|here in which a User brought forth some sources for the Basque country...being a country, if that's not clear from the name. Could be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unethical discussion practices of user DeCausa
Please note that accusing others of violating WP:BRD doesn't give you the right to ignore that rule. Same goes for the self-proclaimed 'I'm a lawyer from London' status, especially given your history of involvement in edit wars and unethical behavior. Casts a lot of doubt on your being a 'lawyer', actually. I have given my detailed reasoning for a minor edit in Byzantine Empire in the section above called Byzantine 'claims' - you ignored my argument. Please note that WP:BRD fully applies to you too as does 'not listening' as part of WP:DE practices.--Alvez3 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for what may have been misinterpreted as a personal attack. I had (and frankly still have) strong reasons to believe you were using tactics rather than arguments to promote your POV. I think it is absolutely unacceptable contrary to the spirit of this forum to try to establish your initial position at a higher ground before proceeding with discussion. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is designed (or at least aspires to be) so that the only thing that matters is pure argument not some tactical maneuvering such as officially sounding 'warnings' or attempts to apply Wikipedia rules too literally that they turn absurd. I will post my response shortly since it will have to be pretty inclusive. In the meantime I think the entry should be kept without the controversial 'claims'. I have no reasons to accuse you of trying to continue edit wars by recruiting other users, but regrettably at this point it looks that way. As I said I do not believe the version I edited was a product of consensus since there were no actual discussion on the matter. So my proposition is - let us discuss rather than use other methods to impose a POV.--Alvez3 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, just after you posted this you got yourself blocked (nothing to do with me) which says it all. The discussion thread on the article talk page about this which I opened 4 days ago is still there and still without any contribution from you. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you just can't help yourself. If you saw my being blocked as a reason to be victorious and now feel like keep 'telling' on me to the administrator please do not use my talk page for that, go the administrators' noticeboard where the initial complaint was posted and add yet another post. Concerning your advice on what I need to 'familiarize myself with' apply it right back at yourself, especially regarding WP:CONS and please understand that consensus is a product of a prior discussion not just any piece Wikipedia text that stayed unedited for a while.--Alvez3 (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it do you! DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, quite the contrary, I get that any further communication between us here and on my talk page it is utterly useless. My suggestion (and intention) is to move to the Byzantine discussion page and stick to the issue in question.--Alvez3 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do. I opened the relevant section 5 days ago. DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing
Please take care not to blindly undo edits made by newcomers. This is how Wikipedia gets a bad reputation. It's okay, as I have re-made the edit, but try to be more careful in the future. Thanks. Jabrol (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I see. Perhaps next time you could simply undo the contentious part then. I appreciate the explanation and links to relevant pages. Jabrol (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sudairi page
VERY Good Job on the Sudairi page. I worked on the page in the past but did not have the time to make the significant improvements like you did. Thanks for your hard work. (Mni9791 (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Eastern Roman Empire
Look, I think it is pointless to debate with these guys. They're preaching (and let's face it, so do we) that 'Byzantine' is bad and that 'Eastern Roman' is good and you are doing the contrary. Let's just wait patiently for a decision (the Support-side has more votes but that's no guarantee). If the 'support' wins then it wins and if the 'oppose' wins then it wins. To drag on this debate is useless. Flamarande (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest
Why do you think Jimbo doesn't want to talk about supply side trickle down? EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this irony on irony? If you're British, I might think so. If you're American...oh dear. DeCausa (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

living people
I reverted your Max Clifford addition, all the convictions are clear in the header without a label of sex offender directly, please read WP:blp he is a living person Govindaharihari (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a long-standing part of the first sentence. You need to take it to talk - there is no blp issue. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Malchy
Greetings,

This is Adair Elwyn Po. I noticed you deleted my edits.

First question I have for you is how does one translate "extrema" to "final"? When it is obvious that it is "extreme".

Look forward to response. Adair Elwyn Po (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

I can maybe see now that you could translate "extrema" to "final". A possibility to be considered. But I think my interpretation for that Latin word is also agreeable, particularly since there will be more "tribulations" with the next pope on the list anyway. Thus not necessarily the last persecution per se.

Another separate but pertinent question is why do you note the city of Rome with an "i.e." as being the city of seven hills?, particularly when there are many cities that claim to be on seven hills, even according to Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills). Including large cities as well, as for example, Moscow, which interestingly enough, has claimed the title as a historical legend for itself (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Moscow).

Solution: You may put "e.g." with the city of Rome and that would be understandable, and possibly add one or two more cities if so desired. But the abbreviated phrase "i.e." sounds either religiously biased, simplistic, or uninformed in my opinion. How is one certain that it is Rome?

Looking forward to your response. Adair Elwyn Po (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We only go by what reliable secondary sources say, not the interpretation of individual editors. Please read WP:OR if you haven't already done so. If you have an edit supported by a source that fulfils our WP:RS criteria that doesn't contravene WP:UNDUE then include it with an inline citation. The source must specifically discuss the Prophecy of the Popes in order for it not to contravene WP:OR. (You can't use a Latin dictionary, for example.) I have no opinion on the part of the article you refer to - it's simply reflective of the source in the inline citation. You were reverted because your personal view can't override the cited source's view, which includes the "i.e.". If you wish to raise this further, you should do so on the article talk page rather than here. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete My Edits?
Hello brother, what I have edited on Shaykh-ul Islam Muhammad Bin 'Abd il-Wahhab's wiki is a result of years of studying Islamic theology, and also months and months of studying and reading through his works.

If you insist on not changing my edits back to what I have changed it to, you would have to prove me wrong, and you have to prove that my edits are wrong.

Thank you.

BuJasim26 (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali www.al7aqq.com/en
 * Please read WP:NPOV. Abd al-Wahhab is a controversial figure. His followers, of which you are clearly one, believe he purified Islam. The majority of reliable sources do not describe him in this way. The edits you made put forward the Salafist/Wahhabi point of view only. We don't do that on Wikipedia. Please spend some time reading our policies before making controversial edits. I've posted on your talk page a welcome template that links to the most important policies and rules we all have to follow. Please read them. DeCausa (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Muslims don't find that information reliable.

 * It's irrelevant whether Muslims find it unreliable. We follow our own Wikipedia policy: see WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

that is not nice especially if the article is good article and Muslims don't find that information reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymankind (talk • contribs) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like it. That's the way it is. DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Do you Harass?
You harass a lot of people I put my sources and you just go and delete my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadsafi1212 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to edit according to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to express your religious beliefs. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I add info about how Imam bukhari
can i add info about how imam bukhari collected hadith? I will try to be as netuaral as possible :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadsafi1212 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you can't call him "Imam" Bukhari. We don't use honorific titles - see WP:HONORIFICS and MOS:ISLAM. Then it depends what you want to say about how he collected hadith. Looking at the article the Overview section already describes how he collected hadith. What facts do you want to add? DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Care to discuss
can you discuss the image on the TP of Islam? I have given my rationale for replacing, perhaps you can be kind enough to give your reasons for retaining. And I have not reverted thrice as you claim. Anyway instead of posting warnings perhaps you can discuss it .FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you have. Your first removal is deemed a revert. BRD isn't about posting on the talk page and continuing to edit war against two other editors. DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Edits
Hi, I made some edits to the Andrew Gilligan page and it was removed (on 12 October 2015) as per your comments 'BLP: partly supported by source mixed with unsourced material and commentary'. The edits that were made were sourced from UK newspapers, so I don't see how they are unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.220.136 (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You made aditional asides that were not in the cited sources. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks! Although it's an inconvenience, the broken English is quite amusing. One of them was that my mother was a "slave of his shoes"...makes me laugh. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Greek in Crimea
I'm back from absence and picking-up where this left off. Would you return to the Talk page for my reply. Thank you. Tachypaidia (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for coming to the defense of a fellow editor over a personal attack. Msubotin (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You are doing wrong edits on sheikh bin baz
Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.187.219 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

More than enough resilience shown.
Hey, I'd suggest reporting "Pahlevan Qahremani" straight ahead, if he reverts again. His perpetual nonsense is tiresome and time-consuming. We've tried our best. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've opened an RFC to hopefully put it to bed. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi
Hi, DeCausa. I've semi'd your page for a couple of days. Please let me know if you don't like it. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Thanks Bishonen. DeCausa (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After some further problems, I've stuck some protection on User:DeCausa/Articles too. Harrias talk 11:41, 19 November 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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people
I would like you to respond to my comment on the talkpage of the article when you have a moment. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this user
Hello DeCausa, I noticed you had some issues with this user on the same topic, as well as outside of it. We'll, he's at it again. Clear edit warring though more than one user has complained about his changes. He does not grasp several important WP's, and does not want to understand them. The further annoying thing is, he's going through a tunnel vision on virtually all articles he edits, which make people give him the same reactions as you and me gave him. This makes it difficult to have an actual conversation. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit; now he's officially making a threat to continue edit warring, reverted it once again, without edit summary,, says the voice of the majority "must be screwed". Any objections to not report him? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nvm, already blocked. Bests. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - either this block will put him straight or he'll soon end up indeffed. I know which my money's on. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

International Business Publications
Please note that books from "International Business Publications" are merely reprints of Wikipedia articles and cannot be used as sources. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Didn't know that. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  precision in fairness

Thank you, London lawyer who started here with, for quality articles such as Bath curse tablets and Controversies relating to the Six-Day War, for rewriting Saudi Arabia and Chuj people, for a clear user page, , , and "", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were recipient no. 1049 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you very much again Gerda. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
 * Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
 * Your Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#3. Arbs...
 * A: should not be an admin
 * B: should preferably not be an admin
 * C: can be but need not be an admin
 * D: should preferably be an admin
 * E: must be or have been an admin
 * F: must currently be an admin
 * Your Single-Letter Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you support this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
 * Your Comments:


 * The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username:
 * General Comments:


 * Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now?  Who?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections?  In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
 * Your Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
 * A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
 * B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
 * C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
 * D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
 * E: working on policies/guidelines
 * F: working on essays/helpdocs
 * G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
 * H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
 * I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
 * J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
 * K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
 * L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with or informally
 * M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
 * N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
 * O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
 * Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
 * continued : F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
 * continued : K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
 * continued : P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
 * continued : U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
 * continued : 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
 * continued : 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
 * continued : Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
 * Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
 * Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
 * Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):


 * The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username:
 * General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72.  Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
 * If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Backwards Copy on Greece article
Hello, I've stumbled into a Routledge book that appears to WP:BACKWARDSCOPY something I wrote, as well as something you contributed. I'm trying to understand if this is something I/we did wrong, or if this is a genuine case of our work being copied by the book. The book in question is this. It was first published by Routledge in April 2017. The passages in question relate to Greece, where large parts of the History section are almost word-for-word reproduced in the book. The issue with this is that the wikipedia content predates the book by 5 years. Most of the text was inserted by me, so I began to panic. However, further research indicates that something which you contributed to the article is also replicated almost word-for-word. I am referring to your addition of The Roman Empire in the east, following the fall of the Empire in the West, is known to history as the Byzantine Empire. It existed for more than a thousand years, from the 4th century to 1453, compared to what the book contains: The Roman Empire in the east, following the fall of the Empire in the west in the fifth century, is known as the Byzantine Empire and lasted until 1453. The current rendition in the Greece article, entered in November 2012 by a third user who appears to now be inactive, is The Roman Empire in the east, following the fall of the Empire in the west in the 5th century, is conventionally known as the Byzantine Empire (but was simply called "Roman Empire" in its own time) and lasted until 1453, almost identical to what the book contains if you remove the contents of the parenthesis. I'm not sure how far this goes, but I would appreciate your help. I have started a copy-vio case at Copyright_problems. --Michail (blah) 18:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since writing this, I found that this entry from a fourth user on 25 March 2013 is also present in the book word-for-word. --Michail (blah) 18:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The date of publication of the book being 5 years after the edits is strong evidence that the text was copied by the book from the article rather than vice versa. Even without that, it’s highly unlikely that the four of us independently plagiarised from the same book. Not sure what’s to be done other than stating this on the talk page so that if this comes up in the future there’s an explanation given. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sub-Roman Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sub-Roman_Britain check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sub-Roman_Britain?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1978_smallpox_outbreak_in_the_United_Kingdom check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1978_smallpox_outbreak_in_the_United_Kingdom?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)