User talk:MementoVivere

Dartmouth Medical School
Can you replace the current logo on the DMS wikipedia page with one that has a higher resolution? Thanks.

POV in Atmosphere at Brown University
(Copied from the Brown University Talk page) [...]I think you (and Tom) have done an excellent job is addressing my questions, and an excellent job with the Brown article in general. The article is, I think, much stronger for your efforts. And thank you for having the intellectual honesty (and patience) to address each of my complaints individually -- that's truly rigorous work, and reflects well on you. orthogonal 17:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Etc.
Thanks for adding the template for Land-grant universities to the Rutgers University article. Just an aside, I like your username, though I am of the opposite imperative, memento mori. —ExplorerCDT 18:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My bad, I just noticed you didn't add that one. —ExplorerCDT 20:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Colonial Colleges
Thanks for stepping in and keeping an eye on the Colonial Colleges article. I saw the edits earlier today and was wondering what to do with them, and am relieved that someone responded with the sensibilities similar to mine. I clarified the distinction you added about the seven additional schools by adding in "trace their roots" which might be a little POV, but hey, what the hell. Excellent idea to add the Charter Years as a separate column. Kudos! —ExplorerCDT 06:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ivy League
I resurrected the link to the Seven Sisters article, chiefly because they are a prestigious group of colleges, and have long standing historical connections to Ivy League institutions. I don't think it is appropriate to discuss the Seven Sisters in an article about the Ivy League, just like I disagree with the Ivy Plus bullshit that has become a bone of contention in recent months, hence why the "See Also" is there in the first place. —ExplorerCDT 21:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied that my edit prompted Rbellin to add a paragraph about the connection with the Seven Sisters. From the talk page, you can see that there already was discussion about the inclusion of the Sisters in the See also section. After the Sisters were placed back in the See also, DropDeadGorgias had requested in Jun 10, 2004 that the connection be included in the article, but until now that hadn't happened. I felt that this was important because many, including myself, were puzzled by the inclusion of the Sisters in the list. — 23:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable. —ExplorerCDT 05:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Brown University people
Some of the people on that list are now (I think) Professors of Literary Arts. I can't find any confirmation of this, though, they're just listed on the department web site. Seems to me like Coover, Creeley, Vogel, Wideman, and Wright are now under the LA department rather than the English dept. Do you know where we could get confirmation of this? I don't want to change them without confirmation because of the professors that hold sponsored chairs.

It would be nice to distiniguish current faculty from past faculty in some way, as well. The best way is adding the years they served at the university, but finding that information may be difficult.

– flamurai (t) 22:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the Literary Arts Program seems to have separated itself from the English Department and become its own department, it would appear to make sense to change the titles of professors who are listed on the Literary Arts website from English to Literary Arts. However, when I did a Brown University Directory Search on these professors, their titles were all listed as Professor of English. Therefore, I believe that this should be their title in the article. However, for Aidoo and Wideman, I kept "Creative Writing" as their other department, in accordance with the directory on the Africana Studies website. I changed "Creative Writing" to "Literary Arts".


 * I agree that it would be best if we could include each professor's years of tenure. But seeing as how that information would not be easy to come by, perhaps we should just note whether or not a particular professor is still affiliated with the University. — 12:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Samantha Smith
In fact, italicized part of that sentence was a quote, although I believe it did not seem like it :-) Download this .pdf file of the official report (4.5 M) and look on its page 16 (20th "pdf page") at the lead sentence of the section 1.15 - "Survival Aspects" to ensure. Although, I think, the way you altered the sentence didn't change much the essense and may be left as it is now. Cmapm 09:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the sentence back to the way it was when you added it, except using doublequotes instead of the italicizing double-singlequotes. I still left out the comment from the middle of the sentence as it was confusing. The quoted sentence is exactly as it is in the report, including the misspelling of "altitude" as "attitude" (originally, I thought that you were the one who had made the typo), albeit with a "[sic]" note. — 10:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting. I can say, you weren't the first, who was confused by that word :-) Thanks for adding that note for future confused people. I removed that external link from the article, because the report is already referenced, namely - through a link in "External links" section "Air Crash - description with a link to official report". Also, some people don't like ext. links to be included into the article, see FAC discussion, User:Shauri's note in particular. Thanks for your attention to the article. Cmapm 12:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD
Just letting you know that I've listed HYPSM on Votes for deletion at Votes for deletion/HYPSM. —Lowellian (talk) 02:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

VFD
Just letting you know about Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. I am notifying people who have been active on either side of the debate. —Lowellian (talk) 23:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Places Visited
I like your places visited box on your user page: I've nicked it for mine if you don't mind. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Brown Coat of Arms.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Brown Coat of Arms.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CLW 15:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added the source information. The existing logo fair use tag still applies. — 08:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mekong
I think putting the Chinese names all together is a good idea. However, I would just like to put a question mark against the statement that the entire river is known as the "Mekong" in Chinese. The Chinese Wikipedia says it is, but there also seems to be a practice to say that the river is known as the 'Lancang' in China and "changes names" once it crosses the border with Laos. Bathrobe 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not really the person to talk to about this, seeing as how all I did was rearrange the information already present in the article. Feel free to reword it if you think it is inaccurate. — 06:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Brown citations re secret societies
(Subject line says all.) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was the one who originally wrote the cited sentences. At the time, it didn't occur to me to cite the information. — 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Places Visited
Haha, yeah, I thought it was a cool thing to add. Although I might have to change the designation "states and territories" since the District of Columbia isn't really a territory. - Pryaltonian 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

William and Mary note
1) Ouch! 2) Thanks.

Dpbsmith (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Just doing my job.
 * 2) No problem.
 * — 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ivy League
I see you're a member of the Anti-whitespace against readabilty School of editting. :) Fra nkB 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If by that you mean that I like to keep paragraphs together based off of main points expressed in the first sentences of the paragraphs, even if it is at the risk of reducing paragraph-size symmetry, then yes, you are correct. — 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

AIB/Lesley University hiearchy
Hi MementoVivere, would like your views here on AIB discussion page. Thanks. CApitol3 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Companies without an unabbreviated name
"An example of a company that is known by an abbreviated name but still has an unabbreviated name is IBM"

You edit summary reads: "IBM is a bad example, it's still International Business Machines Corporation"

I think you made a mistake. Edward 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. When I noticed that the IBM article had the category tag Category:Companies without an unabbreviated name, I removed it and followed the link to the category. I misread that sentence as saying "An example of a company that is known by an abbreviated name but [no longer uses an] unabbreviated name is IBM but also BT Group." While IBM indeed is an example of a company that still has an unabbreviated name, BT Group is not (British Telecommunications plc is a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group plc now). What I should have done was remove BT Group from that sentence. However, now that you've helped me realize what the sentence actually says, I don't think it should be there. I assume that the motivation for this category is the fact that companies that no longer officially use their unabbreviated name are in the minority. So why is it necessary to have an example of a company that still uses its unabbreviated name? — 22:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To remind editors not to add IBM to the category. Edward 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercury / Wario Ware
Just advance warning, whenever that paragraph hasn't been there, people have usually added comments about its launch in Europe being held up due to mercury at a rate of one or two a week. I've found it's better to acknowledge the existence of the rumour and dismiss it in the article. It's certainly a popular enough rumour, as the google search showed. Sockatume 16:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pure speculation and rumor does not belong in Wikipedia. Content should be based upon reliable published works. The results from the Google search just show that some people are speculating or perpetuating this idea in blog posts, comments, and forums. — 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, I'm just pointing out that, if the rumour is not mentioned there, people have a tendency to add it as a fact, and someone's got to keep going back and reverting it. If they don't read the edit histories, then they'll frequently keep adding it. They even have citations to back it up in some cases (the countless otherwise-reliable news blogs who report it as a fact) and it just gets rather tiresome. I'm happy to omit it, really, just thought I'd give you a heads-up. (Not-particularly-relevant nitpick: the existence of the rumour is not "pure speculation": it's easy enough to demonstrate. We have plenty of articles which mention popular misconceptions, albeit more notable ones.) Sockatume 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The existence of the rumor is irrelevant. There exist rumors about every conceivable thing, ranging from unfounded speculation between friends to published articles in notable publications. If you can find a notable source containing this misconception, then feel free to add it back in along with a citation. Otherwise, we should continue to keep it out of the article. — 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, that's why I said it was a largely irrelevant nitpick on my part. Sockatume 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Brown bears logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Brown bears logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy510 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RG Logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RG Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Banana Republic Safari Logo.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Banana Republic Safari Logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brown Coat of Arms.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Brown Coat of Arms.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sichuan
You reverted a previous edit at Sichuan, saying that Sichuan does not mean "four rivers." In fact, it does. Sì means four, and chuān means river. The full name is Chuānxiá Sìlù, "The Four Circuits of Rivers and Gorges." DY (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant was untrue was the implication that Sichuan was named for four rivers. I agree that 四川 (sìchuān) literally means "four rivers", but 四川 is an abbreviation of 四川路 (sìchuānlù) or "four circuits of rivers", which is an abbreviation of 川峡四路 (chuānxiásìlù). By placing that statement there, it implied that the province was named for four rivers. I'll add this information to the article. —MementoVivere (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OkGo.jpeg
Thank you for uploading Image:OkGo.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist - Brainfreeze.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist - Brainfreeze.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rationalist movement
An editor has nominated Rationalist movement, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Smallman12q (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

current-section
Current-section is not necessary for Uptick rule. There is nothing likely to update this issue until the SEC holds a hearing. patsw (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you have mistaken me for someone else. I did not add that section. —MementoVivere (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Berklee Seal.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Berklee Seal.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Berklee Seal.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Berklee Seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  07:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

El Cerrito, California
Just to make sure you put in the data for the city in Contra Costa County and not the unincorporated area in Riverside when making your recent edit to El Cerrito, California, right?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. had mistakenly inserted the data for El Cerrito, Riverside County, California in this edit: . Feel free to double-check my numbers. I had entered those numbers manually based on various documents for "El Cerrito city, California" in the "2010 SF1 100% Data" dataset at factfinder2.census.gov. MementoVivere (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brown Coat of Arms.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Brown Coat of Arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythe hornetfan  21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boston College seal.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Boston College seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythe hornetfan  03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Berklee Seal.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Berklee Seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 23 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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rhode Island School of Design seal.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Rhode Island School of Design seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Education studies" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Education studies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)