User talk:Msalt

Fundamentals The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hi Salty. I probably should have sorted things out with you a bit more. But, a bit of context, so you can see where I'm coming from:

I've spent the better part of 3 days on that article, trying to keep it together. I wrote at least half of it, likely more. Obviously, it's getting edit by a whole shit-storm of anons, and passers-by. And, I just can't discuss every edit I make beforehand, as I've made several hundred. Normally, it's a different matter. But I don't think it's an exageration to say this article would be a complete pile of crap without the lengthy efforts of myself and few others, including Kyaa. Clearly I don't own the article, and don't pretend I do. But, that's why I get a little impatient. I also got a bit pissy since you didn't

I kind of enjoyed being called a Republican though. Just yesterday, User:Grazon told me to "go back to playing with my Ann Coulter dolls". I cut my teeth here writing the Swift Vets article in 2004, which is still in large part my work. And I had to battle some conservative POV-pushers the likes of which Wikipedia may never see again. I'm quite proud of that, and if you happen to read it, you'll see that I completely busted the nuts of those lying sacks of shit. But, I did it with absolute scrupulous dedication to neutrality, so it reads (at least to me) like a very credible and even-handed article (which it is).

Anyways, I am extremely dedicated to NPOV. When the facts are on your side, there's no need to spin at all (and it actually hurts you). I'm not saying you're otherwise, but I try to lean extra hard on the side of caution on that. And that explains my edits which you took to be Republican partisan, so much so that I need an "eye" on me.

I'd say this is clear enough regarding the FOX timing. Note the line "and there the matter stood for nearly a year". I'm done editing, but I thought you might want to adjust the phrasing yourself. Cheers.

Thanks for your hard work keeping that article together. I've been a bit pre-occupied with the birth of a son. Yay!

Derex 11:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

We should take care to not make it seem as if it was Foley who publicized Mercieca's identity - he was scooped by the Sarasota paper. Haiduc 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a scoop, their account was the only ONE in the media for a long time before anyone else mentioned Mercieca's name and then when other accounts popped up they all credited the paper. I also saw at least one article praising their journalistic coup, but felt I had no reason to preseve it. It is a fact though, call the paper if you do not believe me. Haiduc 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently stated that HRC's 'baking cookies' and 'Tammy Wynette' remarks were major controversies, you may want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have just nominated

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is "agreed to" incorrect in the British (orthodox?) English? I assume "made" works with either, and it seems like universally understood phrasing is the best.Msalt (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I didn't know that it was not okay elsewhere. :-) If you "agree a deal with someone", the implication seems to be that you are both equals, neither dictating to the other, and working out the terms of the deal together. If you say "agree to a deal", the implication is that the other proposed the deal and you accept their terms, rather than having contributed to their formulation. At least that's how it computes at the moment. Cheers, Jayen466 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I guess in my particular dialect (Oregon, USA if that matters), I would use "work out a deal" where you say "agree a deal." There's probably a rule of grammar that covers verbs that need "to" after then == I want to say "transitive" but honestly I have no idea.

The only comparable construction that occurs to me is the colloquial (idiomatic?) term " a spell", as in "I need to rest a spell". But "a spell" is an adverb meaning "for a while", not the object of the verb. I guess the "for" is implied, and my brain clunks on that when I try to parse "agreed a deal." You could actually say "We agreed a fair deal" and it would make perfect sense, but it would mean "we agreed on a lot of things, actually" (but implicitly not everything.)

:-))) Great! "To agree to sth." would be intransitive, since it can also stand without the propositional construction (you can simply say, "I agree", and the sentence is complete). The moment the verb takes a direct object, as above, it becomes a transitive verb, which means that the object can (in British English at least) also become the subject of a passive construction: "A deal was agreed". So you were on the right track. :-) -- Jayen466 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure you don't miss it, here is my sincere apology again. Please take into consideration the fact that between Feb 6 and Feb 9, no less that four dormant accounts become suddenly active, raising suspicions of attempts to

On another matter, you may want to read

Thanks again, I appreciate it, and thanks for the pointer on Laozi. Msalt (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your comments and your eloquence in keeping the debate in a tone that is constructive. In my experience in Wikipedia, the quality of an article is directly related to the quality of the discourse and debate in talk pages. Talk pages in which abusive comments are made, or in which the focus are the editors or the subject rather than the article, produce a lot of smoke but little fire (i.e small or no improvements to the article).

So, your help in advising editors to stick to an orderly debate is most helpful. Yes, we can have a vigorous debate, and that is expected, but let's show that it is possible to conduct a debate in a manner that does not impair our ability to create good content and have basic respect for each other while doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it (and of course agree.) Wanna go fix the Arab/Israeli pages? Msalt (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, Msalt, I tried. Got involved in working on several articles on that subject, , as well on a few arbitration cases. ~... not easy (an understatement...)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wasn't really serious! Even MY optimism doesn't get near that level... Msalt (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken. The IfD is closed. Next time, look before you leap, and please

The fact is, I voted to Delete myself, on Fair Use grounds. It wasn't clear to me that your role was official. I added a note to the 5th (yes fifth!) section of discussion on this one photo on the Talk Page, so no one else makes my mistake. Msalt (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We all edit in haste sometimes. Lord knows I've done it enough. Nandesuka (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Msalt (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liked this a lot. "Experiencing the recoil one thousand times is the best way to not know it is coming. This makes no sense at all, logically, but it’s still true. If you can accept that, then you understand the value of simplicity." (I was a sharpshooter in a far, far way land, many years ago) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very high compliment (and validation). I'm finishing my last major revision before seeking agents, so it's great to hear that. Esp. since that passage was based on my very limited experience with shooting; I'm much relieved and gratified to hear confirmation from someone far deeper into it. Msalt (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an excellent article on the last New Yorker Wired magazine, that covers this aspect. A sharpshooting instructor gives exactly the same advice.... I will check if the article is available online. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He says: "The trick, is using the technique of the 'surprise break'. If you pull the trigger slowly you will never know when it will engage—so you can't freak out." Easy said ... it takes indeed thousands of rounds to get to that point ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Several times in the last week you have suggested that I have admitted to "COI". I have not. Please stop.Momento (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have misunderstood. Are you not an acknowledged devotee of Prem Rawat? Msalt (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for letting me know, and for helping with that process in the first place. Msalt (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus where Sumerophile is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism. Please take a look at the references that i have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty stretched for time, and I'm not sure about the propriety of canvassing me personally anyway. Probably the best thing to do would be to post an update to the noticeboard item that I saw in the first place. Good luck, and please try to use more measured tones even when someone is greatly annoying you. It just works better, and reflects much better on you. (Something I learned in my divorce.  :) Msalt (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is not advisable to copy/paste full text of articles, even in sandbox pages, as that violates

Fair enough, and thanks for the tip. Here's my concern: I believe that the current excerpts are not a fair synopsis of the relevant parts, but are in fact are cherrypicked to leave out criticism, in some cases quite pointedly. Do you mind if I re-excerpt the text for what I consider a better balance?

Also, do you mind if I move and recap this discussion to the Prem Rawat talk page? I don't want to blab a personal conversation but it seems like this is something that could profitably be shared with various editors there. I'm still trying to get the hang of public vs. private space between talk pages, user pages and email (both wiki and off-wiki) here. Thanks! Msalt (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have access to the source, don't you? If that is the case, you do not need to copy/paste the whole text there. If you want, you can add some passages that you think are useful. As for where to discuss what, I think that this mention of

WP:COPYRIGHT is suitable here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, how's that? Msalt (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR.

Hello Msalt. You are named as you have been involved in editing the article over the last months. Participation as a party is voluntary, and not compulsory. FYI, the case has been accepted (it requires 4 ArbCom members to accept), so the first step will be presenting evidence. In this phase, editors involved or not, can present evidence mainly in the form of diffs, as well as other commentary. The second phase is the Workshop phase, in which editors and arbCom start putting together the basis of five sections, one about the locus of the dispute, one on principles, one on findings of fact, one on remedies and the last on enforcement. The third phase, the arbCom starts his work by evaluating and fine tunning proposals from the Workshop page, and the last phase is voting. See an example here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Thank you very much. Msalt (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a mandatory initiation either by Rawat or his direct representative, though the techniques could be but are not distributed via DVD to immedialtey to everybody, is I believe essential. (I was busy watching the keys DVD yesterday but have not finished it). At the very least, the initiation requires waiting long and extensive listening to Rawat. Why is that? I do not know but it is remarkable and described in reputable sources. Andries (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should be treated is the strange discrepancy between the public availability of the meditation techniques and the claim of Rawat of himself to be essential for success in meditation. Andries (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, but if we're going to add it we need to carefully frame it as such. As it stands now, your edit reads to me as a straight out sales pitch for Prem Rawat, by treating the statement as a face value truth. Do you mean to say "Despite the fact that scholar Melton describes these techniques as "quite common in Sant Mat circles", Prem Rawat claims that he alone can teach them to initiates." ?

I am hard pressed to see how a statement could capture the nuance of this without turning into advocacy either for or against Rawat. Msalt (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not follow the sources? I admit that the sources put a different emphasis and differ somewhat from what I state here. But by stating my rather personal observations and questions here, I hope that you can see the relevancy of what the sources state. Andries (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

I had to re-read this three times to get your meaning here... maybe you could rephrase it? Hohohahaha (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't mean to be a smartass when I ask, what exactly was not understandable? Not surprisingly, it made perfect sense to me. Also, I'm not sure about the protocol of changing something when people might have already read it. Is it the "So did I" part? Would it be more clear if I said "Well, I injected myself into the dispute too then, and so did Will Beback and LAWRENCE and every new editor who comes to every article in Wikipedia. What is wrong with that?"

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by

Mael-Num (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3 . For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Msalt (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another request for arbitration has been filed, and you may want to comment. See [2]. Best, Jayen466 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Jayen. (Is it OK to call you Jayen w/out the 466? Don't want to get you confused with the other 465...) I am interested in participating, but didn't see any obvious place to do so on that RFAR. I put a note on Durova's talk page asking for a suggestion. Msalt (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I believe you can also just add yourself as a party and make a statement. Will added Jossi, for example, so the list of parties is not cast in stone. Cheers, Jayen466 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSalt, just wondering why you used the derogative term 'embittered' to describe me and others in the Prem Rawat arbitration workshop page? The experience of recognising the Rawat belief system is false is a little embarrassing, but is in fact liberating, and helping others escape does not come from bitterness but from simply doing the right thing. --John Brauns (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider 'embittered' to be derogatory, though it's certainly not the most high-minded spiritual position. I am open to a different word in your case(s) - would you prefer "disillusioned"? It's very true that often you, nikwright2, etc. are among the most reasonable-voiced people on the talk page, in part I think because of the decision (generally) not to edit PR pages, which I think is both highly ethical and -- I'm surmising -- is good for the soul. But the fact remains that I'm trying to describe a community of people organized in opposition to Rawat, rather than in favor of something, and that's inherently somewhat negative. I don't think even "disillusioned" quite captures that negative energy. But as I say, I'm open to suggestion. Msalt (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Embittered' certainly is derogatory, and is certainly not what I feel. You are right that 'disillusioned' also doesn't capture my emotions about why I run my websites, but not for the reason you state. My websites exist to help people, so they arise from positive energy, not 'negative energy'. I have a folder on my email account where I store the many 'thank you' emails from former followers, and potential followers. (I also wrote such a thank you email to the previous webmaster when I escaped the cult.) Also, you describe former followers as 'organised'. Where did you get that idea from? Anyway, why do you need an adjective? Why not just 'former followers'?  :) --John Brauns (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hear you but we may have to agree to disagree. "Critical ex-followers" may be more accurate, I might change it to that. Some adjective is necessary simply to capture the reality I see, you're not people who just lost interest in religion generally or got busy at work, and your shared POV is important to know about. Re: positive energy, well, I've grown a lot since my divorce and am joyful about my new life but I wouldn't really deny having been embittered by my marriage.  :) Msalt (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Critical' is fine with me! Of course I and I'm sure others felt some bitterness towards Rawat. I also felt anger, embarrassment at my stupidity, and shame for the things I did as a believer. Although the embarrassment and shame occasionally reappear, the bitterness and anger were relatively short-lived, as I would hope your feelings about your marriage were! I remember the owners of one of the previous forums adopted a policy of not allowing recent ex-premies to help with moderating the forum because of the turmoil of emotions felt at that time. Anyway, thanks for your objectivity in these discussions. :) --John Brauns (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how I share all of the feelings you described in my post-marriage life, I'm convinced. Yes, I do keep bitterness as rare as possible, and now that you mention, I'll recuse myself from moderating any online discussions about my ex. :) Msalt (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know it's been a long time, but in case it's still relevant: I finally answered your question about the merger procedure at Talk:alt.zines. Jafeluv (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to get documentation at times; your cites helped alot.--Cmagha (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Post-note: I clarified the articles which were secondary sources; Tedder may be thinking that newsprint can not be secondary. A 'review' is a secondary source. As he is the administrator for WikiOregon, I hope he gets onboard.--Cmagha (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For courageously speaking truth to power you have earned the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. On behalf of the community, it is my honor to nail it to your barn.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Milk Moral or Sin ? by Naresh Sonee writer of Brahmand Pujan http://vegetarians-cows.blogspot.com/2008/01/drinking-milk-moral-or-sin.html

APPEAL TO YOU - RESCUE Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN] , [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS] . written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia , These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482 Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan] . However, Sonee is the writer of this book [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999 . registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/ . More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds & spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

---Hi, I've recently given citations and reasoning for including the traditional Dravidian perspectives of LaoTse. Please check. Thanks. --Avedeus (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for the pointer. How long until we get reviews in the press? :-) Msalt (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In regards to you recent edit revert, I started

Hello Msalt! Thanks for your message and for providing the photographs, the first of which I've added to the article Mark Saltveit. On Commons you've listed the source of the photos as yourself, and the author as Mark Saltveit, so (also taking into account your username and the biographical information you've disclosed here on Wikipedia) I assume that you are Mark Saltveit. I wanted to let you know that this means there's a potential problem with at least a couple of the photos. You are depicted in the photos, but you also claim to be their author. For the portrait, this is credible, but the other two photos at the World Palindrome Championship appear to be taken by someone else. If I'm wrong and you used a camera with a self-timer, please mention this on the photos' pages on Commons. If someone else really did take the photos, you need to change the author from "Mark Saltveit" to the name of the photographer, and provide evidence that the photographer has transferred the copyright to you or has released it under the licence you've tagged it with. See Commons:Commons:OTRS for what sort of evidence you need and how to send it to the Commons permissions team. If you don't clarify the authorship of the photos, they will probably end up being tagged for deletion soon. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Msalt. 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

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, Msalt. 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

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]

Hello, Msalt. 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

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]

Hello Msalt,

As a very late update to the

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad to hear it's no longer contentious.Msalt (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]