User talk:CharonX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


1 2 3
The Signpost
30 September 2019

For Older Discussions[edit]

For older discussions please check the Talk Archive to the right. CharonX/talk 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You comment about Rex's block on his talk page[edit]

That comment you quoted about his suspended block was in regards to my comment. My interpretation of this was that the suspended block was to allow him to comment on the community sanction board, which he did, and after this he would continue his block for what ever was left. I should have allerted Jossi to this to begin with and I think this led to her incorrect opinion on this. Kingjeff 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I interpreted Jossi's comments that his block is lifted until further notice, but that any further disruption will automatically lead to escalating blocks starting at 1-month. Maybe Jossi could clear up what was meant. CharonX/talk 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that she had known since she closed his community sanction. Kingjeff 20:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your T1 Deletions[edit]

Hi Jc37, first of all, thank you for restoring my userpage. Still, sadly, it came to my attention that in the past month you performed several T1 deletions of userboxes in userspace. I assume that you were not aware that T1 is explicitly restricted to Templatespace ("CSD T1: Templates that are divisive and inflammatory. This applies only to pages in the Template: namespace, although outside this namespace, other criteria, such as general criterion 10, may still apply; see Wikipedia:Userbox migration for further discussion.") and attempts to widen said scope have been repeatedly rejected by the community. I'd like to request that you overturn your deletions (and forward said userboxes to MfD if you feel it is necessary; or maybe consult a neutral second administrator to see if, as the CSD proposes, other CSD are applicable). I'm certain that you did not intend to directly act against policy nor create a potential source for Wikidrama, as you probably were not aware of T1 troubled past in relation to userboxes. Please drop me a line once the boxes have been restored (and/or put on MfD or reviewed by a second administrator). Thank you and best wishes! CharonX/talk 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome : )
In response to the rest:
Just because a userbox is in userspace doesn't mean that it's exempted from guidelines involving things which are divisive or polemic. According to Wikipedia:User page such things may be removed by any editor. And Wikipedia:Userboxes makes it rather clear what sort of userbox text may be considered divisive. Can you show me a reason to WP:IAR in this case?
As for the question of T1, I have been around and seen it misused. The polls, and proposals, and such which resulted in the definitions at Wikipedia:Userboxes are partially a direct result of that. That's why I'm secure in knowing that I'm not misusing it in this case. As for the question of userboxes in userspace, rather than go pull out all sorts of quotes (including Mr. Wales), I'll just apply the duck test: Are they primarily used for transclusion across multiple pages? Then they're templates.
If you have any other concerns, or wish further clarification, please feel free to let me know. - jc37 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken - I can estimate from the name of the deleted userboxes that a number of them were probably in violation of WP:NPA (and thus easily CSD:G10 able) but for the rest I think the use of speedy deletion seems slightly excessive. Besides being a bottomless well for wikidrama ("Teh evil admin killed my Box *whaa* !!one!11!eleven!") I always fear it might re-inflame the userbox wars in the past as (forgive the slippery slope argument here) admins basically can claim T1 whatever they deem fit, and it takes another admin (and DRV to avoid wheel-warring) to reverse that (I may remind you of the times when a small number of admins mass deleted scores of userboxes on T1/2 basis, at the height of the wars). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Additionally, the "only template namespace" part was explicitly added to prevent scope widening to cover userboxes (I'll dig up the discussion for you if you want) - and no ducktest will change that. I'd also have to point out to several T1 deletions by ^demon that got DRVed and overturned (not count that really wiki-drama ripe one where he T1ed a box that on its last day on MfD, which would have ended up as "delete" with high likelyhood anyway). Finally, I'd really appreciate it you'd use the normal way of MfDing userboxes (or prodding them) in the future, as I'd really loathe to have to DRV those boxes without seeing them (though maybe I'll ask another admin to take a peek at the deleted ones, so we can avoid relisting those that should have G10ed in the first place e.g. "this user hopes all [X] die horribly, while being anally violated by [Y]s" CharonX/talk 16:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem showing you the boxes which were deleted if you wish.
I can tell you now though, every single one (as far as I recall) was due to negativity / negative comparison. As I recall, there's everything from hating some character in some show/video game/film, to hating some politician.
There were also a couple in which I choce to edit the text rather than delete - usually if the name of the userbox was neutral enough, and/or is it was merely removing the "end" of a sentence. It's not hard to turn "This user loves butterflies, but hates bats" into "This user loves butterflies", with a note in the edit summary (or user talk page, if needed) clarifying as to why.
But if the whole userbox is about the negativity, there's nothing worth saving. Not to mention that changing userbox text mean changing such text on every userpage it occurs, whether transcluded or subst, and I would rather avoid misrepresenting a Wikipedian's personal opinion, especially in cases where the Wikipedian may no longer be currently active. - jc37 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be glad if I was able to take a peek at the userboxes deleted in question, though again I'd like to plea to you to avoid using CSD:T1 as a deletion reason in userspace. If a box is obnoxious enough to be deleted under other criteria I understand, but divisive and inflammatory is - to be honest - an extremely subjective and "mushy" criteria, and - as I think you too know too well - T1 deletions tend to lead to wikidrama - which was part of the reason why T1 was restricted to the Template: namespace. I know you as an excellent administrator, so I believe you display restraint and care, and I really want to avoid further wikidrama, but T1 in userspace is a powderkeg waiting for a spark. And if T1 in userspace continues it is only a matter of time until a less restrained admin decides "This user is Furry"? F*cking furfags! D&I! T1! (or deletes any other rather un-divisive/inflammatory box), his "counterpart" on the other side blows a fuse and we are back to the "good old times". CharonX/talk 00:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Which ones?
Also, in reading your comment about subjectivity, a thought just occurred to me: I just remembered that you've been "away" for a bit. Have you read over Wikipedia:Userboxes recently? - jc37 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just re-read it. I suppose you mean the Divisive & Inflammatory restriction on content (couldn't explicitly remember that one) but the bottom line seens the same - if it aint fit on a userpage it aint fit in a userbox - and vice versa. Also there is this section of "verbs to avoid" as they could be construed as D&I, but I have to be honest here, I still didn't see anything about speedy-deleting userboxes that violated the criterias laid above. The "good old times" of the userbox wars made me a bit of process wonk in that area. I'll consult with a couple of others to see and discuss how D&I the userboxes in question were (as I can't tell from the titles and must admit my free-speech-anything-goes bias), then I'll see which, if any, further steps to take. CharonX/talk 13:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Third time asking: Which ones did you want to see? : ) - jc37 16:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, I misunderstood your "Which Ones" comment to wondering which "good old times" I meant. Gomene. I think User:BrotherFlounder/Userboxes/user aim-x, User:BrotherFlounder/Userboxes/user 1337-x, User:WebHamster/belief, User:SteveSims/Userboxes/HatesAOL, User:Scepia/game character-0, User:Scepia/Nintendo character-0, User:Tedius Zanarukando/Userboxes/User PS3 best, User:Lr4087/Userboxes/Hate Exams, User:Rursus/Hate Manga and User:Littledaniel 93/Music/Against Number 1's might give me a good overview on the content deleted, if that does not present too much extra work for you. CharonX/talk 16:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you can see by the above what I meant. They're all negative, or negative preference. (Express what you like, not what you don't like.)
Note that on a few of the above I tried to merely edit them (PS3, for example). To be told by the creator that that wasn't the intent of the userbox, that hate/preference was the intent.
Anyway, hope this clarifies for you. - jc37 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the listing. I agree that couple of them are a bit strongly worded, but the majority seems to be rather "normal". Especially the "This user prefers the PS3 over other 7th gen consoles" really came around as a rather unlikely D&I speedy deletion candidate, even if the box had been in templatespace. I'm kinda confused - are we playing the Taboo version of Don't ask, don't tell ;) ? As I suppose again requesting that you overturn those deletions and not to continue to perform them won't don't much to convince you. I think I'll get in touch with a couple of others to get a reality check on my perspective (as I know I'm also biased here) and a neutral view, which is a better option than starting a boatload of DRVs, which would only invite wikidrama. Thanks again and best wishes! CharonX/talk 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with requesting other POVs, if you wish. I'll follow your example, and ask 3 admins as well. And I'll intentionally select people with whom I've disagreed in the past. - jc37 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to give an opinion on this matter. The deleted boxes seem to me to be particularly useless, but I'm not sure speedy deletion is the right way to deal with them, as it tends to be more controversial than xFD. Why not go through WP:MFD? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: There is a semi-related nomination at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 7. - jc37 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I'm another of the 3 admins asked to comment. I went to look how long this clarification to WP:CSD#T1 that it only applies to templates in the Template: namespace had been there. It was added on June 28, 2007, with commentary that consensus had been reached on the policy talk page. So I went to look on the policy talk page, and found this: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_21#WP:CSD.23T1_scope_widening This was a discussion where admins proposed this very expansion, that T1 apply outside the Template space. There was no consensus for it, and some found consensus against it. The admin who added the clarification, stating that consensus had been established, did not voice an opinion in the discussion. But oh my. Jc37 was the very first person to comment on the proposal, so I think was aware of the discussion. It looks as if Jc37 is continuing to insist on a particular interpretation of T1 that was defeated in community discussion, and was explicitly clarified in text in the policy, and has remained there without substantial disagreement for months. :-( --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Someday, somewhere, someone will actually read what I type, and not make presumptions without apparently understanding. I still have hope. - jc37 01:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable comments GTBacchus and AnonEMouse! I will await the result of the DRV mentioned above (though it does point almost exclusively in one direction) until I resume the discussion. Best wishes! CharonX/talk 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

MFD Results[edit]

A MFD you recently participated in, arguing to keep the content has been closed with a non-standard closure, requiring additional action to maintain the content. Please review my closing and participate with the required move action if you desire. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my bot is approved for that task, I'll try to run it tonight. — xaosflux Talk 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
All done, I deleted the originals. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Love your User Page[edit]

I am and avid reader of Discworld too and recently was able to see Terry Pratchett on the National Mall in Washington DC, USA. I also agree heartily with your English related user boxes.

Maybe you should point out that Psoriasis is 1: not contagious 2: not the cause of (technically) being a level 2 biohazard. Technically aren't all humans biohazards since people can have bad reactions to other people's blood and organs? XD --EpicWizard 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, Pterry is one of the few authors I'd really get out of my way to meet. I found his last book a bit less fun than usual, but then again the Discworld series has spoiled me so far. Did you read Good Omens yet (co-authored with Neil Gaiman). Extremely good stuff. Yeah, the Psoriasis isn't extremely bad (in addition to the fact of being non-contagious) - it fortunatly is rather localized. The downside is that is was (probably) jump-started by my liver inflammation and that the Hep C means I have to avoid many drugs - including some that might help with my Psoriasis... meh. CharonX/talk 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I read Good Omens ages ago. Didn't even know it was a parody of The Omen until I saw commercials for the remake XD. The video of his talk on the mall can be found here for your enjoyment. I suggest that you not have any liquids in your mouth while you are watching it because they will go flying across the room.--EpicWizard 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

on a unilateralist editor[edit]

I saw your declaration of opposition on the Chrono Trigger page.

there's only one word i can think of for people like him (hope i dont get WP:CIVIL'ed) for this, since its just in a usertalk page- PIG-HEADED! I think he's pissed off many wikipedians with what he is doing. Look at That 70s Show and the absence of episode data...he redirected all of them! I suppose the Simpsons is next on his target list? Eaglestorm (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not stoop down to namecalling. At a certain level I actually understand him, or at least his intentions. He wants to improve Wikipedia by removing what might be called "fancruft" - bits of trivia, pages about characters and single episodes which have no real-life links and sources. I understand that this kind of information is best keep at a dedicated wiki (like e.g. Memory Alpha for Star-Trek related topics). Having said this, while I see the good he wants to do, I can but shake my head at the way he goes at it. He reminds me of a bull, marking his target, and then charging it, no matter the opposition. His "mergers" are not mergers but pure redirects, and by seemingly flaunting this "I don't care what you say" attitude, he - intentionally or not - taunts those that oppose the "mergers" and effectively adds insult to injury. Furthermore, the standard he seemingly wants to uphold (WP:EPISODE) might not represent the current consensus of the community as a whole - we need to do a bit of soul-finding here, thats what centralized discussion is here for. But his way of "announce, ignore, redirect" only helps inflame the issue. Also I feel he is acting overzealous here. CharonX/talk 02:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks for your input Eaglestorm (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Underdog (character)[edit]

Thanks for telling me that. I suppose the page Underdog (TV series) will explain Underdog's bio. I'm willing to make myself useful on Wikipedia in any way.


I'm glad you understand. Currently there is a bit of (heated) discussion regarding the notability of television episodes and fictional characters etc. on Wikipedia. The issue is that that we all sometimes fall victim to the "everything but the kitchen sink" syndrome, where we give our favorite characters and episodes their own article, even if they - rationally - don't really are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia - which in turn leads to high amounts of clutter. As I said above there are currently discussions on how to prevent this (without upsetting the contributors or losing potentially worthwhile information)... I digress - there are lots of things you can do here on Wikipedia, though I'd suggest you do something you have fun doing, e.g. if you are interested in the Underdog TV series you might want to give the article a facelift (I think it could use one). There are also many Wikiprojects which can help you find something to work on which you might enjoy. Or you could patrol the recent changes for vandalism (though personally I find this mind-numbing at times). The most important part is: to have fun! Best wishes CharonX/talk 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion[edit]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, CharonX! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder[edit]

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


To take your first point about the marriage userboxes, I don't believe that's the case - to someone who is in a same-sex marriage, why do we need userboxes claiming that their union is invalid? It's just divisive. As for the straight/narrow userboxes, I'd agree more - it's unnecessary, and there's a better one available ({{User:UBX/LGBTinterest}}). Bizarrely, the user who created the now-deleted "Homophobe" userbox also has the "straight but not narrow" userbox on their page. I can only assume they're either very confused or have misinterpreted it. Black Kite 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "...we might have to prune a significant number of equally almost-neutral userboxes that support same-sex marriage too". Why? Who might feel that they are being attacked by such userboxes? Black Kite 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jack (webcomic)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jack (webcomic). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I voted....[edit]

SPID: 11404


Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

hQIMA+DblIy497DOARAAuKN5k9sLVtsOdi4bRK0n9yl3LA8eMgmBmYH9jTsqnJoV rEd+iH8G9z2ZdEe30ReiJZ2n1GsJw8rYTwdrim6m5eqrwhQvv0rBJg2zei9Vog15 PKZf39qX9FYZikJgPdpB8J0HAgjZH+pdTdCfZTj3YT5sAwukXFgFMpBM8N+2k60z NHao9phaKoqiPrm9oqHP3iygtouiNMpzra6bD7Owgr9XwlS7DM4AIJ4ZtQUPzoXx KThAaw3xEyxxngGmha+CqrikyigMwVqKQcJdbhhCgi9L0wNfMMdPphkRTqqVM1j2 DtLVbsW7F0nvfBpsfy5k2pTkEZW/ox59ekyN5/0gWXNbIenLh46f5n9Jl1XNISJj 44ibcAlLiCoEgPJ1+oofulkxAzuYoLKDVo2Yv/Yj/03+DHqO6x31Raag9KVZPUub 27Q2DAfd9zGmV4RPZTWDxMmVT9KT1xCTf3t3SO0ine2I+sZLJ7Z6eY5PQDULOR4w PXi4iFAv71gtVJ7UEJ5Nw8lgHTIWIPqrCwk9uP52kWOdKss8Rea7Ox3EQ1r7E+yp SvDmbaUEXx+f8TNxrmJYJCgZwyWE4/XXg8ahPm0CpJ2a/ODVCNvvVvtX8G3P7DNy VHh3gZbZJwr2yntzX+YRatP7WlStEyRJMkOM1HGaG3ewRN8s5sP23XIBpWAjC/nS 6wH85qiLyovrHTXEN+blPliUR5zH0vKk8fkFw96Fb6mkfSG1Zu1La7GwuekXqevn 9r6RXUKYqbI+kwNdwjwGS1vFl8H+6vpwwbIr9BpAcpyPManM8gJWLxyDviqJk3uY eCUfSJJOd9cD4u7n34GVAlUIVCsquNFJ8LnXsk7JRfjYE8RGB1ul8Xe8Ao+6K7km +h+1jcXB/CxiIXpWrmGxiwFZiEg1YQSUohPqIxupL0hgIe8lCSmiIff1EcX4cUsG jkKHNr5Z/C/gxWWAqLVIW+UpqefwYXWxPJku7lOZqUp/6XiwK1fJiPe8M94fqqvz +lbWJ+efs8b5AkBjPzTUgSZqm9NCN6IF0+UQgKzOAkfWutn56XjR3BzcpOtgKK6f /RlpF2NOwpHU/d/XNxiytCwanKeswILEnK+Rd8YxCYBoFKWHTgBtM6iWRgO4amiF 05XzHDsNGU+3CqjGu0iTFHcdIEO9Bs7y2oFs4QsifvSOqELeI4G/l791EXGWM2NW w8LXEoz+u4wEVDaGmoqli3Yfdv0KIe+zMePTF1txIpUR5b1YDav5JlXClxBaWgyg qRr9f4yMbeSwP86g9PEpS6OCKmLSw3HdH70QySfDZy7wXQ+9QuoFpve0W+xo67jl zqR9nayclmIAGMK45TAcbHj5+mnQxEKMP7E3rU9MfgrCXZ2G0HF9jg5Rql13Op/G xgwrzU+aoZ+w3JZk/TldUNDgDCmkqizq//TRJdxVoEhLg1Ylp/YCRt8lTnTAK16M U568u+qvIo7kBMe3vQEtQ6Qs8KM4LPDlpufti69Ui5YxMGgCIepY7sIeuWpzuedw gAPufaKuve4lHREdm6UvvH7XhTj2K1Px1l5+CpQp2HiNvGuZ976v/s5Y+siiFsnn 88AhQZXHiy8LjWf+mudu4wmsGB/XcfjV6gePK1QxcZM3gqAOy9nUY+cWchZujbI5 g6HEmQQnNHUxi915G1BsUBc3d3MJUyrzzlQMGxabAFYhF7FefPUzPCm7R/93A1YV nK8JsxfEqHPVYfqsfEmBPenPk+ePqVqvQjbqPCkKGy7o9MtDbi0coWdHV/8zi2LK I29+PnOKAgMdtw4GmxlGFcpNgikbjK+k2JxFjeOIh20vkn7iVv66/qzr5LUw3734 YTOmWusXjsCzuxXcbKVTxCFqThl1jgaolVoAV5aayfvk/u37FeHPomouJDejsziX XSqozDXjjb4QR6kPtm1uwgQkdEgs+Lr52mP1bSSdIswHmcKHmTwimApaBA2B/sKV fIXG1TfKSEE5FhhcofBFy4DCENJqrVJ8IJi/+mXQPttUO9qQywI1ywsloeLJ7DMQ hmhi6zT4LdW+PQe5sfQOcTOivvrCYBQPZs8YhIfYnHa3mKkKBI2pznaV/80Qfkba ZVKesumOZht366iJIsky0kuFNWRhywt+FkmPfxEGNzZodH+e0fkVEapWpxgYoC3q JkEEg7VhaNqYIZWCDn6c8ZegU2tJQYfyK+HXB8deKwU+zPHZ2k1xefMh5NX297ZP GC8kXFfEBg6EvSzbyLYvdbaS3wB2WPVKQJ4xkNYyhX6FBr/nFqzAiXT+qSkFZMl5 okEgp6bZxYQ/XacRXFRR9yKzcgcYwL1445SmAmJ80IU+d9Cg3A9sKzO84djdUwEl qwwy1DpxIb78BtiyHQ/89wXbp6uQLJKoAIiFwItz7viGlQgq/2bdYVEKzFZ1JYWK Wqs6KBGLlkm1VIxLEL8nps175B5fHT4DdQBNT4883JqH/K9l/8bbAOFif2ZtmoAp duAR0s7p2HpkP9jb5oKqE9B747OhN1MXAjHLzOQuoMs0sm9yMOUz1HBk161153Bi NxJOihol4D1mexHm8rZHAkgsGvkMLYTIvqjHkmQJtSibut/1gm4uNVK9oxT1Lt+x 5dVVoKHALMUWgiiNCzoAOeVceibbgr2frtgWTbVH5F8RhzLPI5v0pnnPM/1vfhFx RaOQu5hfN45/1OcFK0XXmxChwDKhvzSFQjENsvdAkMhL0EtW1TvEkFzevsjw4lWz r0UF0lMqcRoJ2eA89SzanmsL8w+T6SSaWnMjqzDmUSKYEu9MciYy88ubc9AY5VoC gP1Bq/oIFLu5kRU1nRANDsKQ6C/n3mCC3aAlM606s4mA6AsGuxHlV6A5k7H0sW35 CFlPwyF74byDL2FKcwoZ0yOOlGC4W4MOJP1ycH/5gl8YtaDeHOOYxB+9m6i7ADEH F3nodxNCwTEL/JB4GnWuITpYE+FOKND+TE10x4iv1z4TnG8K7e1AZqFXU2qGosY4 f2SviyOP0NWudklETjjdMu0BtQWPbX5Yvag5FcRyuNxWZ30O0m59sD+nM8maJfDY 4fd2n4G7MZQunqzAklwu+OxHTqcbhCOKAbtduPt9//zq++vtp9BOxq0fA9X5QA1E CA0oabjHEl7Xm4nZCh+W9CntFxvFP3Yu2Eg9MmSattODzjWM7uCc1Q48hV3p4hL1 k7yNW7WWK85AlEyH8hZwdabtNPcnpw7AP4Lmz59WTd0QinU5q6By2vZc03GOGP4S 4IH7mE4on6euAj2M/kqzK7GTYFzHnhnUrYCCnrWOuV3ektFvhHTxGBfHrkYTnu4J JyJpYKcOBG9JeWwJskyQmjEdrzRSRqPu3mS2qttiNhqicRmYfhIsucHnl47mI3UW xFSJusrczGn2rp2yn78sdAIVhkOPrieb1knMQ1UOSOot6dbPBxQQ7YspLmpGDp/v TilqEITEMk9xm/B/U8XKO9UdGg8qsnQM0cVJir0yUu1+gOZm3yHxBxY0Y87i8Osa VsqGx8Q38tYxBbmrJJkKuQpFI86mILAj/414z7H/VuoBLrfSaOVOxV2asc6hwnj4 z4GUR/VfYn5WQocxO8yPTpZDcTZWdAll0QDOzFpB11995D+N1jSJB8/Jb7FTM2TP L0rDVkDLyPqRLhCAvzOrm3bC6LmzglGw/8Aw/ti3YFs5nyPFlPmT3TYAjJ5ISsDI Ye1j7Vzdg8GM/72IuDlE32x9xsxp/jDyty9PbVk4r3WEYTH2igS84yzs57zmZf6D /ELDcNAew+RRtJRyMmSCdbYefsISp9lqhkIgw7EKmJeZya4zErlLfG52CCM4cbim NLWWrZvrjYCMBH/br7QFLXD3MtjmmPDCRcSkHB5hx7H0d6qR/QJYtQxH0tFYS9Ct GiKOUDQ3P0UJuMtm/TpTQJJ97utYt5mwlWysQEt1f1lba9ca20iQoNSwCAwr7b9M WmlN42Tc1796soQEbsSv4t7F2Vf3pVslHlXLRTaKA5BpTBV61PxI0amZoPQ5Xlfh zBMy6xlrRNEyObg8tLPpWbVffHo5V1Q1Tnm1o1fpa/VWyApm94kURTiGvkWE6lGl wLUxQaOWHIvVNm6XXNeD1F01wIsCXc3zLDuia4/wPvmkcZ4GHULsGW5af4OMWVMQ 4/90OhSR9lOds1WQhg/7Fuo5qSY/eICONHmPWHwUfSJ8DPHmHrzPahrS8KhaO5VD UhrGEO+8ZExTViWBDb2MWRZgF5hcFu6RSJqks62uy6Bl9i7ClcrRpdZx37hJrnY1 j9gsMgg5liCmGYePGqT3LDtKvARM7RAa127YxCoQoOBRRO+XgVsmDcR8RkgDI1Xs eKi4yLfpO1CYQ8eX2LjumYGy3G+CBsNtd/W0QULG9H+MBuPQGYGxYcNoguf+dWwd 7VBCe9zXZvaqp6lfpwt7vpn8dfMIXqVG8DK2H7QlGSETTOr5aqLDQe6EVcMJjDuz +SgIsOlq3S5AGAnCiFaw9kAfMUxUn5k299URxi7Pxr/z5PDlACwD9H6LGwVXtq0J GeQiGQ9IFZi5wABhrYU0 =FQE5


Just to let you know[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)![edit]

WikiWomen - We need you!
WWC logo purple and blue.png
Hi CharonX! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

  • Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
  • Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
  • Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
  • Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
  • Reading and writing for our blog channel
  • Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
  • Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)