User talk:Lawsonstu

How are you choosing articles to add that "Library resources" template to? To me, it doesn't seem particularly useful, and it also doesn't seem like it should just be added to any article. Or, rather, I would say that either it should be added to every single article, or to none, or possibly to ones chosen for specific criteria. Has this been discussed somewhere? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. Based on my understanding of how people search for information I think that this box could prove very useful for a lot of people. It was created by a librarian (and I'm a librarian myself) because we know that a lot of people use Wikipedia articles to get an overview of a topic, and then look to other sources, perhaps by following the article's references. Libraries are a great source of further information and this template allows you to search in a library of your choosing in just one click. It will increase in usefulness as more libraries are added to the list to choose from.

You make an interesting point about the scope of choosing which articles should have the box. This is not something that's been discussed yet. Personally, I would like it to be added to all articles, but this is something we'll have to have a discussion about as a community. I was mostly choosing articles which I thought are likely to be looked at by students on popular undergraduate courses or courses that are run at my institution. Perhaps, as you suggest, it would be best to choose articles based on specific criteria. I think that others would be interested in this discussion so is it okay if we move it to the talk page of the template? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Library_resources_box I can start a post in there asking for people's opinions about this. Lawsonstu (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using the talk page of the template is that you can't use that to make a decision about adding it to thousands or even millions of articles. I recommend instead that you use the Village Pump (proposals) page, which is a much wider watched page where people make proposals that will have a significant impact across wide amounts of the 'pedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good idea. Thanks. Lawsonstu (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Emperor Yes scala london 2013.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The copyright owner emailed [email protected] on 25 March 2013 to give their permission. Lawsonstu (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mental health in East Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up open access. If you ever want to talk open access and Wikipedia then contact me. Your userpage says you support London Wikimania 2014 - see you there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will certainly be there; I'm becoming involved in organising it. One thing we'd like to encourage is engagement between the Wikimedia community and the open access community, so I'm starting to make contact with people from both to discuss how we can work together. I was planning to ask for your input because I'd noticed your name on a lot of open access pages. Great news that you'll be coming, and I'll definitely be in touch soon. Lawsonstu (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your hard work on articles dealing with open access. Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ex Libris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: One way in which I'm trying to do this is by working as part of the team planning the Wikimania 2014 conference in London. If you're interested in getting involved, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.

Namaste dear Wiki friend, Wikimania HK was a great experience with Sue, Lane, Jimmy, Edward and the entire sweet Wiki family, I would love to be a part of the Organizing Team and help in Volunteering Work, Media Relations for the Wikimania 2014 and in the forthcoming years or come as a Speaker, speak about Wikipedia and it's immense influence on Indian lifestyle, especially the diverse LGBTI community and why equal marriage laws is essential in every nation, worldwide from UK to India. Do update me at [email protected]. Bhalo Theko, Best Wishes Sou Boyy (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sou Boyy, that's great. Keep an eye on our conference wiki here: https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Lawsonstu (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that you made Template:WikiProject Open. I am not sure what is best to do with this - perhaps we should talk some time. Already Template:WikiProject Open Access covers about 300 articles - see the "assessment" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access. Most of those articles should not be in WikiProject Open Access, but rather WikiProject Open.

I wish there were an easy way to replace all WikiProject Open Access templates with WikiProject Open, and then make WikiProject Open Access a task force of WikiProject Open. If that happened then all WP OA articles could be part of the metrics of WP Open, but they could also be seen alone, and no article would need both tags. That would also leave room for a future of other open projects, like tagging for a WikiProject OER or open data.

What you are doing by putting WP Open templates on things does not hurt, and there is no ready way to quickly do things the right way, and doing sorting like this is a time sink with limited payout after a point. I am just writing to acknowledge appreciation for what you are doing, and to say that what you have done to this point brings the needed benefit of establishing a scope for WikiProject Open, but at some point in the future this kind of tagging will need to be reformed and all options which I see are a bit messy. If you feel that it is fruitful to continue tagging then there is no harm in this. I am not sure what is best. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lane, yes it would be good to talk. I think the next time I'm free would be Sunday or Monday evenings UK time (you're on the US East coast, right?). I've already replaced the Template:WikiProject Open Access with the Template:WikiProject Open on about 50 articles, thus removing them from the Open Access category. The other articles I've added Template:WikiProject Open to currently have both templates. I don't mind doing this, because one of my jobs gives me a lot of free time which I can only spend on tiny micro-tasks like this, but yeah it's not exactly efficient!

I'll probably carry on for now, but a better way of tagging would be great. The task force thing sounds interesting, I've never had any experience with those. Do you mean this? - Lawsonstu (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, okay, replacing the boxes is best if you do not mind. For open access articles, eventually they should only have the new template, but that template needs to be modified to make open access a sub project of open. I have done this before. If you like doing what you are doing, then what you are doing will get the project where it should be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freesound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repository (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Force4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• model|E/R-modeling]]-tool to easily deposit data structures in a [[information repository)|repository]] and to keep these up-to-date quickly and easily during the modeling phase of a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Frontiers (publisher) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Archive for Research in Archetypal Symbolism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Repository

CyberArk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Repository

Freedman's Savings Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Repository

Legal hold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Repository

Repository Open Service Interface Definition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Repositories

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ledo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, we're going to lock horns on this one. The hyphen is utterly necessary and in use, even though a few major groups have unilaterally decided to ignore it. We write for non-experts here. I'm going to revert back again later today. I wish I'd been alerted to that discussion. Tony (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, now that the Open-access journal article name has been changed, might I suggest we have a full discussion on the talk page of Open access before any further changes are made to either article? I'll write a summary of my position there and invite comments. The decisions on this point have been made in a rather ad-hoc way so far, so I think it would be useful to have a full discussion where all interested parties can see it. The most recent page move has separated the 'Open(-)access journal' article from its talk page. - Lawsonstu (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now set out the issue, and my position, on the Open access talk page. - Lawsonstu (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business: you had no consensus to go unilaterally changing the accepted English typography, when some sources do do the right thing. Nor did your friend have consensus to go changing open-source journal back to an illiterate form. Tony (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of geocoding systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks, it is better placed later on -- I have chosen the "funding issues" section. Also I checked the ref. and it was not quite correct -- now ok. Ankababel (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that was an appropriate change. I was wary of deleting your edit entirely, because it is important to make sure that the article does cover dissenting and sceptical viewpoints on open access. So the latest edit is a useful one. - Lawsonstu (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sompeta railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stu, I think this is the correct capitalization for this article, not Article-Level Metrics (see WP:NCCAPS). Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be! I can't move the page to Article-level metrics though because of the re-direct that exists there. Do you know how to deal with that? Thanks. - Lawsonstu (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do it either, it needs an admin. I'll take care of it. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Lawsonstu (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuart - Ed may have contacted you separately but just in case not - I'm flagging up the grant proposal which is being submitted tonight. If you have thoughts, even at this late hour, you could still edit or drop a line on the talk page? :) Leela0808 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lawsonstu, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Open content may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• right to combine the original or revised content with other open content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social machines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most new articles are not as good as your Open access monograph article. Excellent job! Mr. Guye (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Knappenberger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anonymous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: User:Pigsonthewing/Citations - the future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here Lbertolotti (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from Diptanshu.D (talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Diptanshu^Talk 10:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lawsonstu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lawsonstu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Betty Medsger.

A New Page Patroller Domdeparis just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

more sources have to be added to show she meets WP:NAUTHOR

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dom from Paris (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I've added several sources from newspapers and academic journals, do you think we can remove the template? Thanks. Lawsonstu (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lawsonstu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you at the Art+Feminism editathon, hope to be back at the Uni soon :) Lirazelf (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICanHazPDF is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICanHazPDF until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Remsense诉 15:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]