User talk:Poujeaux

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --ais523 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Atheism page
I saw your edits, great job! Keep up the good work. Somerset219 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

atheism wikiproject
HI, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: []. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ipu is saved!
thanks for dropping me a line about it. If something like that happens again to any atheism related pages, just put a link to it and a little info on the to do list on the atheism wikiproject under your immediate attention. I'm trying to utilize that stupid thing. anyways, thanks again.Somerset219 08:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Plantinga & publication
Poujeaux, I got around to looking at P's CV, and I think I see the confusion is coming from. There is indeed an unpublished paper entitled "Naturalism Defeated" (the pdf link we've got), but there's also a much earlier paper entitled, iirc, "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" that was published in what I believe is a now-defunct philosophical journal entitled "Logos". I haven't a clue whether Logos was peer-reviewed or not, but I have to think the OUP-published Warrant & Proper Function was. Gabrielthursday 05:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, and for your support on the AfD page. I don't see it as partial.  Gabrielthursday 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun!
You said: "Looks like another example of wikipedia being too US-centred (note spelling!)"

But don't you know--the US and the UK are two cultures separated by a common language. :)

I also wanted to welcome you (a bit belatedly) to Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy it here with the rest of us in our own little corner of Bedlam. Justin Eiler 18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The God Delusion
Hi, Poujeaux. I just wanted to make sure you didn't read my replies in a 'biting your head off' manner. That was most definetly not intended. In any case, I think your change is still there. I am in no hurry changing it back, as none of the other editors seem to care strongly enough to comment or revert themselves. Once the current debate cools down, there will probably be a chance to discuss it with the others. Best wishes, EthicsGradient 13:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ethics, no problems mate. I think it unlikely that the debate will cool down - it's always going to be a hot topic!


 * Yeah, I suppose so. Dawkins took off his kid's gloves at a mature age. After many years of patience, he has most definetly earned that right. Not that he needs my approval. Happy editing! EthicsGradient 11:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Poujeaux. I agree that the problem of evil [p(Evil|No God)>>p(Evil|God)] is a very real one. The Freewill Defence and the Free Process Defence are in my view both valid, but pretty necessary. However altough this has something to do with p(No God) it has nothing to do with the validity of the "747 gambit" Even if you agree with the conclusion that p(No God) is very high, I genunely can't see how you, or Dawkins, or anyone else, can formalise the "747 gambit" in a way that makes logical sense. Can you help me in this? NBeale 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest I havent read the book yet (have you?) so no I can't help you. It is not very clear on the page. Saying that natural selection can easily produce complicated things is fine and true, but doesnt disprove the existence of god as far as I can see. Poujeaux 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested
Dear WikiProject_Wine member:

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine that has become
 * Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.

Thanks! Regards -- Steve.Moulding 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter
Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project activity
This is a friendly note to let you know that you have been moved to the Inactive members page of the Wine Project. Users are moved to this page when two months have passed without any Wikipedia activity or 3 months have passed without any contribution to a wine related article. The intent of the Participant list is to function as a resource for other editors wishing to get in contact with wine project members for comments or question on Wikipedia's wine article. The goal of this process is to try and maintain the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Participants as current and up to date as possible with active and contributing members. Please note that this is not intended to be a negative reflection on your Wikipedia or wine related contribution and it is well known that sometimes outside life can take editors away from Wikipedia for some time. You will always be welcomed to rejoined the Wine Project should you feel that the time is right. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk or on the Wine Project talk page. Best wishes. AgneCheese/Wine 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The spirit world
Are you sure you want to cut that? I know some Oxfordians who firmly believe in communication with the dead and they might be offended that you called it "silly"! Cheers Poujeaux! Tom Reedy (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some do! But I think to be fair the article should present the theories in their less nutty form. And well done on the article - I gather it is mostly you, which seems to be the main complaint. Poujeaux (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! No, actually Nishidani did the first draft almost single-handedly, but it was built on the previous version, which about nine million SPA editors drove by and shat on. My philosophy is that nothing can refute a fringe theory better than a bald description of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
I'm confused about your reference here: "Last point - OK for the May incident but what about the July one?" And on the outing thing, I wasn't referring to her attempt to get Nishidani to divulge his identity, just the excuse as a new editor ignorant of policies after being here since May 2010, a total of eight months. I pointed to my newness when I divulged personal information on Paul's talkpage the first two days I was an editor and knew nothing at all about Wikipedia (I thought it was kind of a newsgroup). To compare my ignorance at two days with hers at eight months was what I found "more than a bit ludicrous", especially since she's been directed many times to the proper policy and guideline pages.

Anyhow, this stuff gets all tangled up and people talk about things that are completely missed by the other party, which is then used to argue that they're deliberately being deceptive. I don't think that is the case with you, because you're not pushing an agenda (which I why I took the time to try to explain). I know it might seem disingenuous to those on the other side of this dispute, but the only agenda I'm pushing here is adherence to Wikipedia policies, just as my advocacy for Shakespeare is based more on adherence to scholarly standards than championing one person over another as the ->True Author<- (trumpet flourish), which is a crusade I didn't really want to join, although it seems I was drafted into the army a long time ago when I took my first class on historiography. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, sorry if that wasnt clear - the reference was to the fact that someone had claimed you had outed someone in July, when you had been editing for a few months. Of course I'm not familiar with the history so I don't know if it is true, misleading or whatever. Poujeaux (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, P. I think it had something to do with Paul stashing an identity in his archive. How that is "outing" I don't know, and don't really care at this point, as it appears that my first impression that Wikipedia was a newsgroup seems to have been more correct than I suspected! Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this had to do with the ArbCom case, I believe I am not violating my topic ban by chiming in here. If anyone feels that this is a vio, please have an ArbCom clerk remove this:
 * The most recent outing issues involved these actions:
 * 12/27/2010 Reedy making an implied threat to embarrass and out a fellow editor.


 * 1/10/2011 In Edit Summary, Reedy threatened another editor with "embarrassment" if his true identity were known.


 * I hope that clarifies it for you. Smatprt (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comment to Smatprt
It is very difficult to determine what is "negative" or "insulting" when the topic itself is patently ridiculous and has drawn so many obviously unbalanced advocates. For instance, the Prince Tudor theory, which advocates that Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth, that he later had an affair with her years later and conceived the Earl of Southampton, to whom he then wrote the sonnets that ostensibly suggest a homosexual relationship, is currently the hottest Oxfordian theory and is gaining more and more support. (Of course all that has to be decoded using the right key.) How do you write about that with a straight face? Just stating its ridiculousness is branded as "insulting" by true believers, as I'm sure you've learned by now. In any case, we honestly tried to present the topic as neutrally as possible, and if you find any transgressions don't hesitate to bring them up or change them. We've both been a lot looser about it than we've been made out to be. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I know, but there is an impression that some parts of the page are written in such a way as to make the anti-strat position look as ridiculous as possible. One example is the way the Oxford section of the page runs smoothly into the Prince Tudor theory. Now I would assume that people like Smatprt and Nina think that the Prince Tudor theory is nonsense (I'm not sure - would like to check this) and would not want to be associated with it.  And the whole history section seems to focus on the silliest aspects, almost as a source of amusement.  I think part of the problem is that the Oxfordian arguments presented on the page come not from Oxfordians, but through two stratfordians - you/Nishi interpreting Shapiro/Wadsworth. It would be fairer if Oxfordian editors were to write most of that section, and cite their own sources (which of course you regard as not reliable).  If the whole subject is as completely ridiculous as you claim, why do intelligent people like Jacobi and Rylance believe in it? Poujeaux (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again - if this "comment to smatprt" involves the ArbCom case, then I think I can respond here. If not, please have a clerk remove this.
 * I do believe that much of this section has been inserted to make the case look weak. The code/cypher stuff is rarely if ever mentioned as a major argument of the Oxfordian side. Of course, there are extremeists on every issue and some of them see hidden coeds everywhere, but the major writers and researchers rarely bring this stuff up. The Prince Tudor theory is in the similar vein. sure, it makes for a great movie, but I rarely see it used as any kind of major evidence. Here is the Oxford section that reflects the main arguments, and also reflects the kind of evidence that is most often quoted in RS material like Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, NY Times, etc, as well as Anderson, the most recent published Oxfordian:(Also note how much shorter this is than the present version.  All that code and Prince Tudor detail belongs in the Oxfordian Theory article, as the editors note clearly says, not the general SAQ article. That is why the charge at ArbCom that the material has been formulated to make the case look ridiculous and unsupported.)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
Editors note:This is a SUMMARY: detailed additions should be placed in the long article on 'Oxfordian theory'

The most popular present-day candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. After being proposed in the 1920's, Oxford rapidly overtook Bacon to become within two decades the most popular alternative candidate.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a concealed poet, and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his long-term relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his extensive education, his academic and cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays.

The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which Oxfordians believe correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped.


 * Note that the references are all varying degrees of RS - Encyclopedia Brittanica, US News, Academic Strittmatter (although we all realize that he and Tom don't get on), Fowler - they conform under various policies including [], and WP:Fringe, as long as its clear that this is what advocates say they believe - not what mainstream critics believe . To quote Parity policy: "For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed." (This would include the Kathman/Ross/Reedy blog material that is not peer reviewed, but is used in the article.) Smatprt (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Contact
I was hoping you might contact me by email. I wanted to give you some references and answer your questions for myself. I'm at smatprt@aol.com Smatprt (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Smatprt, thanks for your various comments above. To be honest, I am not that fascinated by the subject and I dont have much time to get in touch ex-wiki by email. Besides, there is a danger this could be seen by some as an attempt to circuit your ban (by feeding info to me which I would then feed into SAQ).  As I said recently in the talk page, I am trying to keep an open mind about whether the  anti-strat case is as weak as it appears in the article, or whether the article is biased. Which one book should I read? Mark Anderson? Diana Price? Poujeaux (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on your interest - Diana Price, regarding the anti-view; Anderson for the best Oxfordian summary.Smatprt (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Numerical weather prediction FAC
I think I was able to address your concerns, which helped minimize historic content and information duplication significantly. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh - you have changed the article a lot in repsonse to my rather quick comments. Well the structure looks a lot better to me now, with the history section as a separate main article. Poujeaux (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, the suggestions have been specific enough to fix. See if the new form of the history and climate model sections is more up to the standards you had in mind.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
 * 2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
 * 3) NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
 * 4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on . Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Oxford Summary being proposed and opposed at the SAQ article website
--Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Dear Sir, I don't know if you have read this, in the squabbling about whether it or any change is appropriate at the SAQ website page. I am sending it in case you have not. I found that the editors read only as much as they can tolerate and then start attacking. This is an unhealthy defensive approach to new information or neglected information. For some reason, I have been accused of violations about the Wikipedia policies, by an opposing thinker, and may not be able to contribute any further. So here you go. It is straight-forward, simple, and non ideological. with best wishes, --Zweigenbaum

The leading present-day candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. After being proposed in the 1920's, Oxford rapidly overtook Bacon to become within two decades the most popular alternative candidate.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a hidden poet, and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his relationships withQueen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his extensive education, his academic and cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays.

The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford' personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which Oxfordians believe correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped.

Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did see it. It looks fine to me but the problem is, they will never accept a complete re-write, especially coming from you. Your approach is wrong - you should be trying to make minor tweaks to the existing text to improve the article. Sorry to see you banned but you were asing for it. Poujeaux (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sneering and such
Hi Poujeaux.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you have the best of intentions, but your constant harping about how “sneering” and non-NPOV the article is, is not constructive. For example, what in the world kind of good did you imagine that would do? It is ok to hold the opinion that a certain specific sentence is phrased in such a way that you think it comes across as non-NPOV or sneering (or whatever the issue may be); and it is ok to state this opinion and see if others agree. But you're now well past that point and the constant repetition of it is 1) not helping, 2) very unlikely to achieve what you want it to achieve, 3) comes across as both unconstructive and confrontational. You have by and large failed to convince the other editors of the article on this point, so the best thing you can do is accept that we do not agree on this point and to let it go. If Nikkimaria's (truly excellent) copy-edits have addressed your concerns then so much the better, and repeating the “sneering” and other pejorative descriptions serve no other purpose than undermining your own credibility.

Note that I do truly appreciate your contributions on the article (although based on your comments to others I doubt whether you believe that), so the above is only intended as the gentlest possible advice on how to make those contributions as helpful, constructive, and effective as possible. There has been far far too much conflict here, so anything we can all do to reduce that now and in the future is probably the best possible for both the article and all involved.

PS. The WP:AGF guideline is, I believe, a truly helpful tool in so many ways. If you feel that the article is “wrong” and that you're not being heard by the other editors, please do try to ascribe it to a genuine and honest difference of opinion, rather than malice and entrenched bias, and I think you will find your participation both a lot less frustrating and your ability to interact with other editors without constant conflict much improved. It is worthwhile to remind oneself periodically that in most questions it is possible for other people to be both unbiased and objective, and still disagree. --Xover (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary Xover, my criticisms of the NPOV and sneering tone of the article have been very constructive and have led to a considerable improvement to the article and reduction in its bias. And these arguments clearly have convinced other editors - see the latest set of edits from Nikkimaria.


 * Here are a few examples:


 * Removed paragraph about "Shakespeare, Oxford, and Bacon spoke to Percy Allen from the spirit world in 1947..."


 * Biased section titles (one said evidence, the other arguments)


 * Overstated case, anti-strats "all"...


 * "His dredging machinery failed to retrieve the concealed manuscripts." now changed to "any".


 * "Copious archival research had failed to turn up the expected confirmation..." and "myriad clues" changed by Nikkimaria.


 * Although the article has improved, there are still some examples of this sneering, biased tone in the article, and I will continue point these out to you and the other editors of the page. Poujeaux (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No conspiracy? Huh?
Have you even read Ogburn? See page 239, for just one small example: "What seems to me self-evident is this: that either the manuscripts were deliberately destroyed to remove incriminating evidence or they were deliberately concealed. evidently with consummate thoroughness. All things considered, it seems to me hardly credible that Shakespeare's manuscripts, many if not all unduplicated by the printer, could have disappeared by accident down to the very last scrap." And in the appendix he quotes himself from a 1972 Harper's article: "The alternative to the untenable orthodox view is that the manuscripts were a 'hot' property and not to be shown, even to a printer. Presumably this was because of the light they would throw on the authorship ... Could they be disposed of so that they would not be found until the existing authorities had passed from the scene? If my theory holds, that is what was done, with consummate skill." What exactly would you call such an arrangement?

Ogburn claimed in an interview that everybody knew of the deception: "... this is not a conspiracy theory when you have a centralized, authoritarian government, as you had in Elizabethan England, you don’t need a conspiracy; you have an imperative from on high and everybody is obedient to it."

However, he is being more than disingenuous here, and in fact Ogburn claims conspiracies existed at every level, from the street to the highest levels of government, while simultaneously denying that there were none. That he does not come right out and use the word is beside the point. See Gwynne Evans and Harry Levin's commentary on Ogburn: "Had the truth been anything like the story that Mr. Ogburn has sketched, the greatest problem would be to unravel the conspiracy of silence that thus far kept it from coming out. It would have to be taken for granted that Jonson and other literary men, along with Shakespeare's fellow actors and editors, and all who were aware of the glamorous mystery, had to be bribed or browbeaten into covering it up. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He discusses the issue on p 182-3: "The case for Oxford does not assume a conspiracy". "No conspiracy would be required under an autocratic government with the means of enforcing its will in such a matter".  Your last examples just prove my point - the word is generally used as an attempt to disparage and ridicule an alternative viewpoint. This is all very familiar ground from other conflicts. Poujeaux (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That you take those statements at face value demonstrates that Ogburn would have been an excellent U.S. congressman. They routinely introduce bills with deceptive names that state the very opposite of their content, such as bills with ostensibly anti-terrorist names that actually reduce individual Constitutional rights and deficit reduction bills and employment bills whose main purpose is to actually cut taxes. Ogburn's would be named the No Conspiracy Needed Act, and it would redefine the word to exempt any gigantic secretive government scheme that required no records to be kept with everything communicated orally. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution to my SAQ NOR
Dear Poujeaux, I formally proposed a compromise to resolve the issue. It is based on a new definition which Nishidani dug up today from a source by Paul Prescott. May I please ask that you take a look at it hereand chime in on the NOR as to whether you think it is equitable or not.

It is at the bottom of a long post which I needed to make due to a direct request from Johnuniq (evidence of my desire to not be perceived as ignoring an admin). Anyway, the bottom line is that Nishidani's source (which he termed "pellucid") reads:


 * a) "Anti-Stratfordian' is the collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him"

and I therefore proposed that the SAQ switch to this close paraphrase:


 * b) "anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who believe that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays and poems commonly attributed to him".

Thank you for your previous comments, and thank you (in advance) for following up on this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogala (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted
Hi Poujeaux,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has  been modified by  which changed the  wording  of the  discretionary  sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just  articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)