This page isnot a forum for general discussion about lolcats. Any such commentsmay be removed orrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about lolcats at theReference desk.

If you leave me a message, I will respondhere and will let youknow on your talk page using the{{Talkback}} template.

I would like to add theLeesport Lock House to the wikiprojectsWikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania andWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Should I just add {{WikiProject Pennsylvania}} and {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} to the talk page of these articles, or is there something else I need to do? Do I, a non-member of these wikiprojects, give the article an importance or a class? Any insight for this self-taught Wikian would be helpful.Mjf3719 (talk)13:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked my question at theWikipedia:Help_desk -->Wikipedia:Help_desk#September_22.

Adding the proper templates to the article's talk page would work. If there are already several such templates, you might consider using{{WikiProjectBanners}} to list multiple wikiproject banners in a collapsable box. As for assessments of importance and class, each project is different - you'll want to see if your project has particular criteria for each. In general, though, you can assign importance and class, but these are subject to consensus. Hope this helps,UltraExactZZ^Claims~Evidence13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the appropriate Project templates to the article's talk page. I have also edited the article a little to bring some of the formatting in line withthe Manual of Style. – ukexpat (talk)18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, good to see that you expanded the Park Point article. It's looking good. Second, I think the infobox should stay. Though it's obviously not a mall, the template includes properties that it has. It doesn't really matter what the template is named, it's just a good way to summarize the article in a standard format. You can quickly go to the article and see its name, logo, coordinates, location, etc. Let me know what you think. --Dan Leveille^TALK19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with getting the size and proportions to work. I agree that there should be some sort infobox there; but I'm having a difficult time getting them to line up correctly without throwing the overall formatting outta whack.Mjf3719 (talk)19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mjf3719 (talk)20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I adjusted it a bit. Thanks :) Article's lookin good! --Dan Leveille^TALK20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again! Wikipedia does not have a built in spell checker. Firefox does. it underlines all the typos. You might want to check outWikipedia:Typo#Methods_for_searching_and_correcting_typos. --Dan Leveille^TALK19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha :P Wikipedia had the exact opposite effect on me. I browse WP looking for info on something for class and I'm like "OMG THAT HEADING SHOULD NOT BE CAPITALIZED!!" And then I get sidetracked...hahaha --Dan Leveille^TALK17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

withdangerous i wanted to make clear that too few tasks can be a cause for accidents, too... that is taken from the official report... it seems to be the result of research about work environments like found in ATCs... how can we express that without injuring WP:NPOV? --Homer Landskirty (talk)20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section that is taken from the official report could be quoted; but as I read that portion of the article, it seemed especially biased against Peter Nielsen. However, later legal investigations (seeConsequences) seem to largely place the blame on SkyGuide as a whole, and not solely upon Nielsen. Regardless, there are many different causes of this accident, and I felt that the 'dangerous' clause unnecessarily placed a tone of negligence on one person instead of the entire system that was in place.

I'm in favor of quoting the official report, but making it more obvious that it is a quote.Mjf3719 (talk)12:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! If you have any questions, would like some direction, or just have Phillies-related comments, ask on my talk page! I hope you enjoy the project, and I hope to see you around Phillies articles too. Welcome again!KV5 •Squawk box •Fight on!17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCivil Air Patrol Wing Commanders, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under thecriteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please seeWikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be onnotable subjects and should provide references toreliable sources thatverify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request thatadministrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template{{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article'stalk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Theseeker4 (talk)14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Catch - I was intending for the page to beCategory:Civil Air Patrol Wing Commanders; I guess I forgot to type the Category part of the title. Anywho, the page should be Speedy Deleted (since it cannot be moved into the Category namespace).Mjf3719 (talk)15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, though considering you are not a brand new wikipedia user, I probably should have left a real message here instead of templating you. Have a good one,Theseeker4 (talk)15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fightin' Phillie. You have new messages atDarth Panda's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I certainly appreciate your nice contact. However, After starting a User page on 18 DEC, I was almost immediately "attacked" by OuroborosCobra over his concept of what was important. I was polite and mentioned I was new....but he was relentless in his obnoxious and overtly rude comments that by 21 DEC I had decided to simply walk away and not bother doing anything on or with Wikipedia. I would think that a licensed Professional Educator would be the exact kind of person you'd want reading articles and spotting typos, et cetera. I am a Special Education teacher at a Secured Facility for extremely "troubled" youth and am regulary verbally and/or physically attacked by my students....I don't need that kind of BS from some punk wannabe like OuroborossCobra! Maybe he needs his leash yanked back.Cadet Programs (talk)01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed a licensed Professional Educator, then surely you know that name calling and bickering over such a thing as Wikipedia is pointless. Anywho, I admire your enthusiasm, and encourage you to continue editing Wikipedia; don't let one user prevent you from spreading your knowledge across the world. However, while I stand by Cobra's decision not to include the patch because it is not an official item of Civil Air Patrol, that doesn't mean there aren't other options available. Take, for example,this article.Fightin' Phillie (talk)04:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I take your advise and start a NEW PAGE about CAP patches. Within two hours some fool has deleted all the work! AND, I have a snotty note from the RUDE OuroborosCobra person again! I can't believe some prick has the right to delete an article with NO due process?? YOU have been nice to me but I am absolutely disgusted by this treatment....perhaps you can reinstate my pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Patches Thank you for being polite---unlike others!Cadet Programs (talk)06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, far from a "snotty note," I left one suggesting that the article may have merit for existing. I feel that standards should be maintained, but that is hardly snotty. --OuroborosCobra (talk)06:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I thought I'd mention that I removed the "I can't be the only one" section on the article's talk page. Removing comments is bad form but screw it, calling for rioting because people need to die is a lot worse. Ifyour question to the editor who added that was earnest rather than rhetorical, you should take it up on his talk page. Hope you don't mind,Kizor13:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aproposed deletion template has been added to the articleCivil Air Patrol Ranger Tape, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No references, no evidence of notability. For that matter, only relevant in Pennsylvania under limited circumstances, rather than applying to CAP as a whole.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia'scriteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" andWikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or onits talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through theproposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of thespeedy deletion criteria or it can be sent toArticles for Deletion, where it may be deleted ifconsensus to delete is reached.—Huntster(t •@ •c)01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you have indeed improved the article, the main problem is that it does not assert notability, and has no third party sources showing such (all that you added were primary...first party...sources). That is one of the keys to keeping the article around. If you can find some news sources, etc, that meet ourWP:Verifiability policy, I'll be more than happy to cancel the AfD. To be honest, the same concern applies to several of the new CAP articles you've created, this just stood out the most.—Huntster(t •@ •c)05:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to take a look at the history my my user talk page, and see if you can prevent the anon from copying and pasting contents fromTalk:Civil Air Patrol there? There is absolutely no reason for it to be getting duplicated there, copied and pasted, and the anon doing it is doing that same insult crap in the edit summaries that has been the hallmark of this little debate. It is getting vandalistic. --OuroborosCobra (talk)04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, thought you were an admin. Sorry to bother you. --OuroborosCobra (talk)04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!! I re-took your advice and started a Gallery on the Commons. Please add ANY patch pics you can. I wonder how long it will take the Stasi to find and try to delete THIS content. Thanks again for YOUR support!68.187.89.72 (talk)18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Patches[reply]

Oh no, I'm so sorry, I forgot to tell you. Since you moved your name to Fightin' Phillie, all of your subpagesshould have been moved there also. If you look for those same articles under your new name, you will find them all safe and sound. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&from=Fightin%27+Phillie&namespace=2—Huntster(t •@ •c)07:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao, yeah, that's how it goes sometimes :P—Huntster(t •@ •c)04:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that, at least for the time being, the Community Service Ribbon can now be awarded to both Cadets and Senior Members, per therecent CAPR 39-3 ICL. I'd change the article myself, but I don't want to interfere with your current work. --OuroborosCobra (talk)23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:CAP Gippsland GA-8.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriatecopyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.07:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to delete this image, as the Flickr user has set it to All Rights Reserved. Make sure that when you upload something from Flickr, it is either public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. It cannot be Creative Commons Noncommercial or Nonderivative.—Huntster(t •@ •c)09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the original holder if he would release it via GNUhere. Maybe there will be a response someday.Fightin' Phillie (talk)20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.

1. Basically, all CAP images should theoretically be on Commons, since official CAP-produced images will be in the public domain. The only images (of any kind, not just CAP) that should be on Wikipedia are non-free fair-use images. I keep watch of the CAP categories both here and on Commons, so regardless of where an image is uploaded, it'll eventually get to the correct location.
2. Wikipedia will detect any exact duplicates of an image (based on the file'shash sum), either here or on Commons, once it has been uploaded. If a copy exists, one of them can be deleted without problem. However, the sites mostly rely on users to properly categorise images, so non-exact copies can be found. This, of course, does not happen most of the time. I've found probably a dozen CAP images on Wikipedia that were never categorised.
3. There are various tools to help with image tasks, mostly with transfering or uploading to Commons. If you look on my userpage, in the top-left box, there are three image-related links: CommonsHelper allows you to move images from Wikipedia to Commons (when appropriate), Flickr-to-Commons helps transfer images directly from Flickr to Commons, Free Image Search Tool (FIST) does exactly what it states, and Flickr Search limits the keyword search to only Commons-compatible images. There are various others, but I'm most familiar with these three...they are all I really need.—Huntster(t •@ •c)01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mtaonline.net/~bcvcap/index.htm

My pleasure to try my hand at improving the Civil Air Patrol articles.Newguy34 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Sry im in NYGW, didnt know—Precedingunsigned comment added by71.190.193.195 (talk)01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for the message. I definitely have a good time here! And telling people about US - don't worry about this, I do that every day, whether talking to my friends, or making the articles on czech wikipedia about America :) I'm doing my best, because this country is great, and people should know that. By the way, good luck with your officer commission, and good luck in the Air Force! Above all! --Novis-M (talk)23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mr. Airman, do you know what uniforms is USAF going to use in tactical enviroments, like for the spec ops? I don't think they are going to use ABUs - not good camouflage, not good for combat, I guess. Thanks for answer. --Novis-M (talk)01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. InAFROTC, my detachment is still usingBDUs, while I have heard rumors that other Detachments have already made the switch toABUs. I'm not sure whatSecurity Forces is using downrange, but I imagine that most AF personnel that are imbedded with Army units (such asTAC-Ps) would wear what the Army is using (ACUs), but that's just a guess. In short - I have no idea!Fightin' Phillie (talk)14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a great solution. I could never figure out how to get that numeral thing anywhere but the end like the ribbon page recommended. Thanks!KV5(Talk •Phils)00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For fixing my rack!KV5(Talk •Phils)00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I'm sure it will take a concerted effort by many future-minded editors to maintain the Timeline as lean as possiblewithout upsetting our fellow editors. If we can get new editors to just report the event they are reporting and not add explanatory tags, no matter how mundane, we can establish a standard for future editor visits. Thanks...--Buster7 (talk)02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring tothis edit.

Two points:

1. The D&C article is adead link and therefore is useless for purposes ofWP:Verifiability
2. The remaining "sources" come from three websites: Wilmorite's (the commercial developer), Reporter (the student magazine), and RIT itself. Nobody would consider any of theseWikipedia:Reliable sources.

Finally, why not hit the library and dig up a source or two that will actually improve the article? People have recently done this for the RIT-related articleGravitySimulator which is now vastly improved in terms ofWP:Verifiability.

—129.21.179.32 (talk)01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you :^)

You're obviously well versed in the art of wikia if you're adding banners. Why not shoulder some of the burden yourself instead of just nagging others? I would most certainly edit articles all the time if there weren't other things going on. No one is claiming that the information is incorrect or malicious -- why are you passing gas then running? At least bring the discussion to the article's talk page stating X, Y, and Z instead of just harassing those who revert your edits. This way, it becomes a community topic instead of a personal one. We (the community) will certainly discuss the idea until a decision is made, and until then leaving the article in it's "last known" state is good.Fightin' Phillie (talk)02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement	My response
"Why not shoulder some of the burden yourself instead of just nagging others?"	I don't believeWP:RS exist that establish the notability of this shopping center. Why would I look for something that I don't believe exists? Furthermore, why do you consider adding improvement templates "nagging"?
"No one is claiming that the information is incorrect or malicious -- why are you passing gas then running?"	Actually, several people have questioned the implicit claim that this shopping center is notable—seeTalk:Park Point at RIT#Notability. AsWP:SOURCES#Sources states, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
"At least bring the discussion to the article's talk page stating X, Y, and Z instead of just harassing those who revert your edits."	When someone challenges your edits, the ideal for which to strive is to explain, citingWP:Policies and guidelines, why you made those edits. Instead, you are crying "harassment" at the first voicing of disagreement?

—129.21.177.112 (talk)00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to the paper articles provided. Now you need a database to read them. More reliable, sure, easier to access, no. Either way, if it makes you happy,C'est la vie.--Terrillja _talk02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that inWikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, I moved your “option #0” to the “comments” section. I suggest that if you want your vote to count, that you chose the option that best fits your views.Greg L (talk)18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for your concern, I would indeed like to vote for not linking MM-DD in any article, and wish my vote to be counted as such, and not just as a comment.Fightin' Phillie (talk)18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I suggest you vote for both optoin #1s and state what youreally think in your comment. There is no “option zero.” This is the best way to have an impact on the outcome. By far.Greg L (talk)18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. SeeUser_talk:Loosmark#Since_you_asked.Greg L (talk)18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  P.P.S. A huge,huge amount of effort went into designing the structure of the RfC. Believe me, this issue of “no linking at all” came up. It was not included as an option for a reason. Please try to affect change byusing the options available. Believe me, that is the best route. Further, you should know that youredit comment is more meaningful than your !vote. Edit comments are central to understanding the community consensus and the reasoning of the editors comprising our community. If you really want no linking, I would suggest that both option #1s are your best course and that you should leave a cogent, well considered comment that you don’t thing any dates (years, or month-days, or both) should be linked.Greg L (talk)18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I votedoppose to number 1, stating my views and counting as closely as possible.Fightin' Phillie (talk)18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well aren’tyou stubborn? But I suppose that will be counted as a “support” vote. Your comment makes your views abundantly clear that date linking blows.Greg L (talk)18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Phillies Stretch at 2009 Spring Training.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on thefile description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry atthe discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.— neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) --— neuro^{(talk)(review)}15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this image was tagged. Retreived fromhere, it's released under Creative Commons 2.0, which links to a page that states "You are free to copy, transmit, and distribute this work." If anything, it's incorrectly labeled as Creative Commons 3.0 instead of 2.0 .Fightin' Phillie (talk)15:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the 'Creative Commons 2.0' license. There are different types of Creative Commons licenses -- that image has a license with a non-commercial clause, which means that we cannot use it freely. Thanks,— neuro^{(talk)(review)}15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en  ?? Wikipedia is commercial?Fightin' Phillie (talk)15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider non-commercial licenses to be free, no, and that is why it is at PUF.— neuro^{(talk)(review)}15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Which ones do you like? I always try to improve Wiki as best I can. So you're aPhillies fan I gather? Its really sad about the death ofHarry Kalas. He madeNFL Films what they are today, I always loved watching them onNFL Network just to hear his voice.TomCat4680 (talk)18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer won't ever be the same without the Voice of Harry.Fightin' Phillie (talk)18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither will NFL FilmsNFL Network Tribute to Harry Kalas - The Voice (from NFL.com)TomCat4680 (talk)19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you akitten! Kittens promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi,

EVOC is the Emergency Vehicle Operator Certification course, or something very similar. It's a training program in the US, and perhaps Canada, for training drivers of emergency vehicles. A CEVO is a grduate of that course: a Certified Emergency Vehicle Operator.

Hope this helps!

-Badger151 (talk)23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it certainly could. I will give it a look over the next couple of days. This weekend is pretty free, so I should have some time to chuck something together.KV5(Talk •Phils)00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article.KV5(Talk •Phils)00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on thePace count beads article. Also, thanks for serving. Happy New Years to you.FieldMarine (talk)15:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Vigilans, sir! I am wondering if you have any desire to put in some of the decorations (such as badges) of the Civil Air Patrol, in addition to the awards. I'll try to help, but you'll probably be more knowledgeable. C/Amn72.74.109.87 (talk)23:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see your Colo Wing of CAP wiki subpage migrated to a full wiki page. Would you do the honors or may I?? Thank you so much, cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk)

Certainly. I've found that my time is more valuable now and haven't been wikiin' much lately. I hope perhaps some of the info is useful -- it's basically the same format from my PAWG page. Don't forget to include information about the GSAR school, and perhaps the yearly trek to Carl Spaatz's grave at USAFA. Fightin' Phillie 22:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to expand on your page. I'll refer back to your above cooments as I go thru the page. Have a wonderful Holiday season! Cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk)01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any cited refs for "Trek to Spaatz's grave". Got a big chunk done... history next. Cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk)05:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Maj Gen Curry; my bad.a link It's become part of the Colorado CAP culture -- you'll find plenty of examples (especially in the Denver/GP1 area) of cadets receiving the Curry achievement at the memorial. Fightin' Phillie 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Phillie,

On the talk page for the above mentioned article, you mentioned that there was an articles for deletion discussion, but I can't find it. Could you locate that for me? Please post not here but atTalk:Civil Air Patrol Ranger Tape. Thanks,Ego White Tray (talk)16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on the article one day. 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We needyou!

HiFightin' Phillie! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at theWorld Digital Library, a project of theLibrary of Congress andUNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participatehere. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you!SarahStierch (talk)14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formallyadded as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon^talk18:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in theAugust 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in thecurrent discussion. This notice is provided pursuant toWikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers!bd2412T21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk ·contribs) is indefinitelytopic-banned from all pages relating to anytransgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk ·contribs) is indefinitelytopic-banned from all pages relating to anytransgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk ·contribs) is indefinitelytopic-banned from all pages relating to anytransgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk ·contribs) is indefinitelytopic-banned from all pages relating to anytransgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk ·contribs) is indefinitelytopic-banned from all pages relating to anytransgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks ofclassified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk ·contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see#David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk ·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. Thestandard discretionary sanctions adopted inWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at theSexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior wassubject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee,Rschen775401:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fightin' Phillie. Voting in the2016 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of National Cadet Special Activities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Cadet Special Activities 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.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t •c)17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of National Cadet Special Activities, to which you havesignificantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should bedeleted.

The discussion will take place atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Cadet Special Activities until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visitthe configuration page. Delivered bySDZeroBot (talk)01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]