User talk:Italick

Italick (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
Is always admirable, but sometimes a user proves again and again that they just don't yet have the social skills needed to work on a collaborative online project. When that happens, we politely ask them to leave, and make sure they do. The burden is then on the user to explain why they should be allowed back and how things would be different. Over many years experience Wikipedians have learned that until a user owns their problems and makes a convincing case to return, there is no real chance of a successful return. I hope this perspective is useful. Happy editing, Jehochman Talk 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for visiting my lair here and talking.  I agree with what you said.  The editor whose situation I was watching was the one that bothered me the most out of all of them that I have seen.  Because I agree with what you said, I kept myself uninvolved for a long time after I saw it.


 * My primary reason for being bothered by watching was that I saw more of a chance for that editor's improvement than I see for most editors who are shown out. That is because she came back to be productive after a year-long siteban and created numerous articles, while showing that she can be productive under a topic ban.  She pushed the envelope, but she proved that she can do it if she wants to.  I didn't see any evidence from her that she had any skill at negotiating or debating online on the other hand.


 * Because she was not concentrating on Shakespeare or Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), I question whether some editors are still opposed to her being unblocked because of her ideas on Shakespeare even if she concentrates on other topics. Italick (talk) 03:40, 11 July 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) 14:06, 24 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

American Red Cross
Would you please add that information and its source to American Red Cross? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Previously, my source was stated in my edit summary. Italick (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)