User talk:Granpuff

This user may have left Wikipedia. Granpuff has not edited Wikipedia since June 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Granpuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld Episode)

Please stop moving this page. Your edits to that page are becoming highly disruptive.Gears Of War 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive page moves. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Moves

You have been asked before to stop disrupting by moving these pages. The moves you made were both against consensus and incorrect. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving The Office pages. Your moves are against consensus. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granpuff, could you please add reasoning in the edit summary next time when you move pages? Since we don't want too many users making unnecessary moves, we would like to see the reasoning behind moves especially when the necessity of the move wouldn't be immediately obvious to others. —Tokek (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panther template?

Why did you change the PINK PANTHER template? It was organised neatly, untill you messed it up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to The Hobbit films, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

You mark all of your edits as minor. Adding or deleting sentences, categories, or entire sections of an article are not minor edits. Please mark edits as minor only if they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered rude. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Please click "My preferences" at the top of the page, click the "Editing" tab, and uncheck "Mark all edits minor by default". Ward3001 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borat film

Regarding your edit to the article, please keep in mind that Borat does redirect to that page, so the "redirect" hatnote is required for clarity. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. Just64helpin (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, minor edits, deletions

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Frankenstein. Thank you.

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Frankenstein (1931 film). Thank you.

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Dr. Strangelove. Thank you.

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Platoon (film). Thank you.

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Schindler's List. Thank you.

In fact, as far as I can see from a quick scan of your contribution list, none of your edits have edit summaries except those which are automatically provided by the system. Edit summaries are useful in letting other editors know what it is you're doing, without the necessity of opening the article and checking.

Also, all of your edits are marked "minor", while some of them are not minor in nature. Please turn off the proper switch in your preferences and use "minor" only for truly minor edits.

Finally, you have been deleting from articles blank lines which come before and after hidden comments which say "". These lines are intended to solve a problem in Internet Explorer rendering which crowds the lede paragraph, or the final paragraph of the lede section, up against the ToC, or the end of the external links (or whatever is the bottom section of the article) up against the sucession boxes or navboxes. The layout looks considerably better with them in, so it would be appreciated if you stop removing them.

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that despite my request, you've continued to delete the blank lines before and after the "please do not remove" comment. Is there something I can do to help you understand why I believe they are necessary? I'll be glad to go into more detail -- drop me a note here or on my talk page and we can talk about it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granpuff is a problem editor who does not respond to requests for discussion. If this continues, I plan to make a report to WP:AIV. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, since his edits don't seem to be outright vandalism, but instead contentious, and his real sin appears to be not talking to other editors, you might have more luck with a report on WP:AN rather than an AIV.(That's what I intended to say but mistyped. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Granpuff, I've seen this happen to a number of editors, that they've been blocked because they refuse to discuss their edits with another editor. You can avoid that by responding here to the people who have problems with what you're doing. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a heads-up, Granpuff. When editors refuse to discuss their edits after other editors request an explanation, administrators are prone to giving indefinite blocks until the editor shows some willingness to discuss. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)Granpuff: Thank you for your note on my talk page, in which you wrote:

Sorry about. Its just that I haven't been here too long.

I understand -- you've only been editing since the middle of June. Just to go over the points that people have been making here:

Please don't move pages without first getting consensus for the move on the article's talk page;
Please use the edit summary box, under the editing box, to provide a short summary of what you've done in each edit;
Please go to "Preferences" and turn off the switch which marks every edit as being minor, and only click the "minor edit" box when the edit you've done is truly minor (fixing a typo, for instance);
Please do not delete the blank lines before and after a "Spacing, please do not remove" comment.

One other thing, you've been changing the order of writing credits in the infobox on film articles. It's customary here to list the writer of the original source material (the story, novel or play that the film is based on) first, and then the writers of the screenplay, not the other way around.

If you'd like to discuss these points, or anything else, the best place to do so is probably right here on your talk page, so that the discussion is centralized. If you have any questions or concerns, I'll be glad to help you. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you made a couple of dozen edits today, none had edit summaries, and only one wasn't marked as "minor". Could you please give me your thoughts on why it's preferable not to use edit summaries? Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granpuff, it might help if you look at edit summaries left by experienced users. Edit summaries do not always have to be a burden to add. There are some abbreviations (such as + for add, rv for revert, rem for remove, etc) that make adding an edit summary easier. Ward3001 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Granpuff is still not using edit aummaries, and I came here to say the say thing. A simple "add wikilink" or "fix title" or "copyedit" or "punctuation" or some understandable abbreviation of these will do. Also, everything is still being marked as minor -- I haven't looked through every single one of your edits, but are they really all minor? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at about 15 edits (but not all) made in the last 24 hours. They were generally minor (cleanup, adding wikilink and pipelinks, etc). But I continue to have some of the same concerns, and I think he still may have all edits marked minor by default. I also have some suspicion that Granpuff is not as naive as he has indicated. Some of his edits are not often done by newcomers. That's some speculation on my part, of course, but I state it because sometimes problem editors change identities so they can continue the same sloppy editing practices and get by with it. Just a thought. Ward3001 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an administrator, I see that you are still marking all of your edits as minor. I know that there is a button in you Preferences that lets you do that by default, but that does not make for an excuse- you should reverse that preference if you have it on. This edit was not minor, and yet you marked it as so. I know it has been a while since somebody has told you about this, but I thought that I should bring this issue to your attention once more. --Airplaneman (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Granpuff,

I would like to bring to your attention that many of your "minor" edits are not minor. I applaud you for marking two (2) of your edits as not minor when they were not, but this edit, in which you left no edit summary and removed the dates, was not minor. Please remember the difference between minor edits and non-minor edits. Also, please leave more edit summaries; your work is more subject to reversion otherwise. Thanks, and happy editing, Airplaneman (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates). See WP:HNP. -- Banjeboi 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material with "fact" tags

I note that the one edit you made today which was not marked as minor was the deletion of material from the CNN article which was slugged with "fact" tags. As I told another editor:

...a "fact" tag does not necessarily mean that the information should be removed from an article. The material is not necessarily untrue, an editor has simply requested that it be confirmed with a citation. If you'd like to help these articles, you might want to do some research and see if you can come up with a citation to support the disputed material, or a clear refutation. If you find something that refutes the tagged information, then you would be justified in removing the material, although it would be best to rewrite it with the citation to prevent the false material from being inserted again.

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see both sides of this issue. Statements with fact tags that do not involve any controversy about their veracity probably can stay up a while. On the other hand, statements with fact tags that have been up for many months and are not very important in the article could (and in some cases should) be removed. Otherwise articles collect lots of unsourced baggage that weaken the overall article. Sometimes it's a matter of judgment. If it is likely that others will disagree with the removal, a comment should be made on the talk page first. If no one objects in a reasonable period of time, then remove the unsourced statement. Ward3001 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the seems perfectly reasonable to me. There was another editor I know of who automatically deleted every instance of fact-tagged material he came across, without evlauating it in any way and without discussion. I wanted to make sure that Granpuff understands that automatic deletion is not the proper course of action. As you say, it requires editorial judgment to decide what should stay and what's good to go. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really important

Granpuff,

I'm an admin here, and I was asked to take a look at your editing habits. Although I haven't got an opinion about whether your edits are right or wrong, I did notice several things that you might think are not important. I promise you, they are important.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it is ruled by Consensus. This means that you can't do whatever you want, you need to defer to the collective judgement of your fellow editors.
A key part of this collaboration is communication. It is simply not acceptable to continue to edit, ignoring the comments and questions of your fellow editors.
I'm sorry if this is too blunt, but let me be clear: People have been blocked in the past for making generally good edits if they don't communicate with others.
If, for some reason, you just don't want to talk to others, the only other option you have is to do what they ask you to do. For example, if someone tells you to stop moving articles, your choices are: (a) discuss it with them, or (b) stop moving articles. Things work much better if you choose option (a). I don't think anyone will block you if you choose option (b), but then you end up having to do whatever anyone else says, and that's no fun.
Please stop marking all of your edits as minor. It is established custom that only very, very simple things like typo fixing, vandalism reversion, etc. can be truly considered a minor edit.
I almost forgot: please use an WP:Edit summary when you do things. First, it's a help to other editors. Second, it makes it more likely that your edits won't be reverted by people who don't know what you're trying to do.
Again, I'm not telling you to do what Ed Fitzgerald says; I am telling you that you can't keep going along as if no one is trying to talk to you.

Please let me know if any of this is unclear. I very much hope and expect that you'll start discussing some of these issues with people. Otherwise, I'm afraid Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place for you to spend your time. --barneca (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress?

Hi. I want to note that although you did manage to mark two edits as not being minor (and they weren't, you still haven't used a single edit summary. Is there a reason for this reticence? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi! Are you the same "Granpuff" that runs "the Real Lives of Thomas the Tank Engine" and is a member of SiF? ZEM a.k.a. Hankengine (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress??? No

Granpuff, you're pushing the limits of our patience. You continue, despite polite requests over and over and over again, to mark edits that are not minor as minor. And you continue to never add an edit summary. You have been cautioned by an admin to change your editing practices. Is there something you don't understand here? Can we answer any questions you have? Or do you simply not care whether you are blocked again? I hope you will respond here (for others to see). This is not a threat; it's a promise: The very next non-minor edit that you mark as minor will get the attention of several admins. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't said anything because your edits have been OK, but you really do need to provide edit summaries, and talk to other editors who express concern about your editing. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! An edit with a edit summary [1]. Please continue. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granpuff, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this edit, but please be aware that changing the meaning of a sentence is not a minor edit. That's the last time I'll remind you of that. Please, please read Help:Minor edit. Ward3001 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiklinks and redirects

Granpuff, you may be happy to know that this message is not about a serious problem with one of your edits. It's just for information purposes. In this edit, you changed the wikilink from one that did not redirect (the Holocaust) to one that does redirect (the Holocaust). Not a serious problem, but also not a good idea. We avoid redirects when we can; they waste Wikipedia's resources when they're used needlessly. It's a good idea to check a wikilink after you make it (using the preview button) to see how things change. But not a problem; I fixed the edit. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire"

I have reverted your changes and move of this article. Refer to the Manual of Style on joint-term dashing. Robert K S (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Joker (comics), it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Timothy F. Geithner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not move articles around without discussion and consensus --Marc Kupper|talk 20:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Granpuff, you have resumed your earlier (and very bad) habit of marking almost all of your edits as "Minor". A page move is not a minor edit, and many of your other edits are not minor even though you marked them as such. This has been discussed with you over and over and over. I'm not giving you warning after warning any more before taking action. Be warned. And edit summaries would also help. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that when you move a page it is automatically marked as minor, so that's one thing you can't fault Granpuff for. But, I came to this page because Granpuff decided to move a hatnote under a POV template on Iraq War, which goes against consensus at WP:HNP, and I noticed on this talk page he was reminded of WP:HNP in the past, so it seems he is just ignoring this. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning before WP:ANI report

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Rorschach inkblot test, you will be blocked from editing. You have given us no indication that you intend to stop your seriously problematic edits. You can be blocked without further warning if you make another inappropriate edit. Ward3001 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is also your final warning about marking major edits as minor. Ward3001 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: That edit of Rorschach inkblot test. All I see is that he moved the hatnote meaning he or it does not understand WP:HNP. I took a look at the last 20 edits and don't see any I'd call "seriously problematic" nor "inappropriate." Some edits are borderline in light of Help:Minor edit. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XHTML formatting

Hello, please do not change <br /> to <br> because it is XHTML formatting to support HTML and XML. See this for more information. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Watchmen, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the things this user account does are:

Randomly change links to redirects to direct links in violation of WP:R2D.
Randomly removes suffixed dates. For example the trailing date gets removed from "Name of movie or book (1973)". I don't know if there are style guidelines about this.
Randomly removes red links.
Randomly changes the order of hatnotes, sometimes violating WP:HNP.
Randomly adds or removes blank lines.
Randomly changes <br> to <br/> or the reverse.
Nearly all edits are marked minor. Most of the time this is correct but sometimes there are content changes that are marked minor in violation of Help:Minor edit.
Randomly moves articles and then immediately moves them back. I believe this is to create redirects though it's also confusing as the new redirect page only shows a move in the history and so people think it used to live at that address.
If it does one or more of the items above to a page and the changes are reverted then it will revisit the page in a month or more so and do the same edit. See 1 and 2 for example.
Uses an edit comment once out every thousand edits or so.
Has never contributed to a talk page.
There sometimes are constructive edits. I believe there even was one that included a ref tag!

It's mainly irritation and so far the account has only been blocked once. It's been doing this since day one indicating it was likely an already experienced WP editor with a new account or is a sockpuppet. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Your recent edit to The Rescuers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Hi. First of all, please stop marking all of your edits as minor when the are not. Second, please provide an edit summary with each of your edits. Third, others have been asking you to cooperate in this matter over the course of nearly a year and yet you have refused to acknowledge their concerns. Please feel free to respond to other editors via your talk page or that of the editor who contacts you. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The block is for one week. You have been asked several times to please not edit this site in the way that you do since it creates a lot of work for other editors. You're welcome to return to editing after the block lifts, but if you insist on marking everything as minor and redoing links improperly, you may be blocked permanently. It's clear you mean well, but please contribute properly. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I'm sorry, but you've exhausted this community's patience with your disruptive editing and non-communication. If you wish to contribute meaningfully, leave word here and your block will be reviewed. As it stands, I or another administrator will have to do a massive rollback of your most recent edits and I am quite certain that you will not respond anyway. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Granpuff

What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpuff (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 August 2009

I looked over the ten edits before the block kicked in and you can:

Provide edit summaries. It's a courtesy thing and also speeds up the edit review by others.
Don't fix redirects that are not broken. See WP:R2D. ([2], [3], [4], and [5])
Don't add arbitrary date links. See Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items ([6]). Be aware there's a contentious discussion going on over the practice of adding or removing date links.
Respond when someone leaves a message on your talk page. There's no rule that says you have to respond but it could help smoothen things out.

All of the edits I looked at were minor and so that part is fine unless I'm missing something that PMDrive1061 noticed. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I noticed is that Granpuff marks all of his edits as minor and that virtually all of them have been strange, to put it mildly. One edit was to split Boston, Massachusetts into two separate wikis when one would do; it isn't necessary to have individual links to both especially since Boston by itself directs to the article on the city anyway and there are links within to the article on the state/commonwealth. Look, I hate blocking well-meaning users. Really. I'll give you another chance to edit, but please study WP:MOS, provide edit summaries and please stop marking all your edits as minor. It may help you to create a new article; all the edits I've seen you do are to existing ones. If you'd rather edit an existing article, try adding content rather than just rearranging the layout. Oh, and please use this page and the talk pages of other editors when someone is trying to communicate with you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Granpuff

All right then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpuff (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 August 2009

Good. Nice to see you interacting. Good luck, please consider the suggestions we've made and above all, have fun. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been asked more than once in the past to use edit summaries on your edits. Start using edit summaries, or you will be blocked from editing. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of chelsea lately episodes

I have create a page for episodes of chelsea lately.Now I need help improving so can you help me and and send this measseage to other users.PAGE:List of Chelsea Lately episodes.--Anesleyp (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]