User talk:KIRTIS

I am currently working on editing the Wikipedia page for the Terrace Theatre in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. I am working independently and gathering information from a variety of sources. I have no position of authority with any group, organization, or entity. I am a member of the Save the Historic Terrace Theatre facebook group and I am following the Friends of the Terrace. I support redevelopment of the Terrace Theatre site, including the addition of a grocery store, but I do not favor demolition of the Terrace Theatre.

I am a new contributor to Wiki and am still learning my way around. My main concern is that this article should be factual and objective. Since the Terrace is currently in the news and its potential demolition is the subject of a pending lawsuit, I believe the article should be a factual representation of its architectural significance and its history, not a commentary on its current condition or any redevelopment proposals.

I lost some of my edits due to the fact that I had directly quoted from another website. I am currently reworking my submission so that the information is in my own words, but I will include the citations showing where I got the information on Liebenberg and Kaplan and their design of the Terrace.

The fact is the building is still standing and historic designation is pending. I believe no other facts are currently relevant. If you disagree, please don't undo my edits. As I said, I'm new here, and still learning the etiquette of editing in Wikipedia. But I will persist in pursuing fairness and accuracy. Thank you. KIRTIS (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

KIRTIS, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi KIRTIS! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I too am new to Wikipedia editing and have also chosen the Terrace Theater article as a place of interest to get my feet wet. While I think we disagree on some feelings of what to do with theater, I thank you for your help in cleaning up the article, along with other contributors, to make an informative piece that an outsider can read and develop their own independent opinion based on FACTS presented and cited. There's now a copyright challenge that I think must be dealt with ASAP (I didn't do it!), but I'm in over my head now and not sure how to proceed next. But all in all, thank you!

BirdtownBovine (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 September

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

• On the Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved Page Terrace Theater (Minnesota)

Hello,

Moving a page does not stop a user from editing it and they will in fact see the moved page in their watchlist. The best course of action if they make a change that is unconstructive or disputable is to revert and discuss per WP:BRD. I would review that essay as it is important to editing here and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thanks! -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre, Robbinsdale, Minnesota

Thank you for your message. I just posted this response to Dane on his Talk page:

I am not the original author of the article but I stepped in to help "clean it up" on 9/15/16. Others had, in my opinion, written from a perspective slanted toward demolishing the theater in order to make way for the construction of a Hy-Vee grocery store. I am a former Robbinsdale resident (I graduated from the local high school in 1970 and my husband and I built our first home three blocks from the theater in 1975). We remained in nearby suburbs on subsequent moves, but have been less aware of the situation since moving to the south metro last fall.

I became aware of the local controversy over the theater in July 2016. Since that time I have been interested in its historic preservation. However, I felt the Wikipedia article should not be a forum for expression of opinion. I felt that it was important for the article to state the facts of the theater's history and architectural significance. I also believed the theater would be preserved because the request for historic designation is in progress. I didn't think anyone would be foolish enough to circumvent this process of the federal government and attempt to destroy the building before the process is completed. Yesterday's actions (sending a construction crew to materially deface the building on a Saturday after an appeal was properly filed with the district appeals court), in my opinion, defies the court as well.

That is why I will continue to watch the article and make sure it is kept up to date with facts. The fact is that someone made the decision to substantially further the building's demise yesterday, and I feel it is important to include a photograph (which I took myself yesterday afternoon at the site) to show the building's "current" status. I believe the photograph is approved through Wikimedia Commons and I will attempt to repost it now.

---

I will look at how to reinsert my photo showing the demolition and I will also heed your advice above. Thank you.

KIRTIS (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Photographs

Thank you. I'm hopeful that an editor will resolve this situation quickly. Jonathunder told me that Cassianto lives in England; I see no reason for him to be involved in this page. As I tried to explain on the article's discussion page, I just want to make sure the article includes a photograph showing the demolition that was in progress yesterday afternoon. The fact is that demolition was begun, and a photograph proves that fact. KIRTIS (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you have read the policy indicated.

Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is the 'Encyclopedia that anyone can edit'- which is presumably what brought you here in the first place. As such, where editors are located is irrelevant: concern should be for the quality of articles, not pushing a particular point of view. As you are doing.

Please continue these discussions on the article talk page, not multiple editors' pages. You have been told this.

You should be aware, however, that pissing to someone's page does not give you the right to unilaterally and repeatedly revert them.

You have admitted yourself that at least one of your images is crap: why re-insert it. The other adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. A photo of a theatre being demolished is excellent: in an article about a theatre being demolished. In an article about the actual theatre, it is irrelevant.

Please do not edit-war. Continually reverting multiple editors will doubtless lead to administrative intervention.

Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kirtis. The above is just a reminder to try and remember to log in when you edit since it looks like you forgot to do so once again when you made this edit. It easy to forget to do so, especially when you're new to editing, but it can lead to confusion and even problems with other editors even when done by accident. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose account

Hi again Kirtis. I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at WP:SPA. There's nothing wrong per se with focusing most of your energy on a single article or genre of articles, but you have to be careful that your focus does not become to narrow. Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines as well as it's own manual of style and sometimes the best way to learn more about editing is to look a variety of articles, etc. to see how other editors are editing and applying policies, etc. It's also easy to quickly be too emotionally invested in a particular article when you pretty much spend all your time in one place, which can lead to a mistaken belief of that you possess some kind of ownership over the article. I'm not saying that is the case with you, but I've seen other editors (mainly SPAs) try to exert some sort of control over what they mistakenly consider to be "their" articles, and these editors often find out the hard way that Wikipedia does not work that way at all. Expanding you horizons a bit (so to speak) not only helps you learn more about how Wikipedia works, it also shows other editors that you are more WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE. This can be important because Wikipedia is based upon collaborative editing, so there's no need to feel you need to do all of the heavy lifting yourself. It's OK to leave an article incomplete, go work on something else, and then come back to it later. It's entirely possible that while you're away, someone else will step in and help improve the article. Stewardship is OK, but you have to be careful with edit sums like this and this, or posts like this where you comment on others in a manner which might be perceived as an expression of ownership. it's best to stick to commenting on content and not the contributor whenever possible because the latter can lead to a quick deterioration of things you never can be sure how the other person is going to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Marchjuly. I have finally found some time in my day to look at the Terrace Theatre article again. Just FYI, I volunteered to work on this article when a friend posted that it needed work. This is my first and, as you have perceived, so far my only Wikipedia effort. I would actually love to do more of this when I get a chance. I will look at the article on Single-purpose account, as you suggested. Thanks, again. KIRTIS (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine KIRTIS. There's nothing wrong with editing the articles about topics you may be interested in or be familiar with; if, however, you belong to any groups connected to the theatre or are editing on behalf of someone with such connection, then you should be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on COI editing. Although Wikipedia does not expressly prohibit COI editing, it is something that is highly discouraged and only deemed appropriate under certain specific conditions. Once again, this is just meant to provide you with information about a Wikipedia guideline that new editors often are have problems with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:North Elevation.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:North Elevation.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:North Elevation.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:North Elevation.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I contacted the owner of the photograph via email and received this response: "We are actually looking into this. It's possible that we will have to take the image that you're interested in off of our website." Until I hear back I will leave the image in the article. I note that it may be removed by October 5 if not resolved by then. Thank you. KIRTIS (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:North Elevation.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:North Elevation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, I will look into this. KIRTIS (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:KIRTIS/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Liebenberg & Kaplan

I created a new article and submitted it for review. It was reviewed by experienced editor Robert McClenon, who had some questions. I posted the following on his Talk page today:

Liebenberg & Kaplan

Dear Mr. McClenon, thank you for your prompt review of my article, which I submitted for review through my Sandbox. You state that "It isn't entirely clear what the subject of this draft is. It appears to be about the Terrace Theater (Minnesota). If this is meant to be an improvement to an existing article, Articles for Creation is not the process for edits to existing articles. Discuss them on article talk pages instead, at Talk: Terrace Theater (Minnesota)." I am the author of the Wikipedia article on the Terrace Theatre (Minnesota). I created this new page about the Minneapolis architectural firm of Liebenberg and Kaplan at the suggestion of another editor after various editors removed details about the firm from that article. Liebenberg and Kaplan was a significant Minneapolis architectural firm and especially significant as theater designers, having designed approximately 200 movie throughout the Upper Midwest. The Terrace Theatre was the MOST SIGNIFICANT of all their theater designs, so I felt that it deserves its own section within this article.

I hope this explanation is sufficient; please let me know if you would like to discuss further. I will post this same information on my Talk page as well.

Thank you, KIRTIS (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the L&K article at the suggestion of jonathunder. I plan to update him as well.

KIRTIS (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a few changes to get it ready to move to mainspace. It doesn't have to be perfect before moving, but I would recommend a bit more work, which I'm happy to help with. You might want to work on how references are formatted. Don't go through the Articles for Creation process, though. We don't make people do that. (It's an option, but not mandatory.) Jonathunder (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonathunder. I created the article in Word with footnotes and pasted it into my Sandbox, so I see that I need to work on formatting the references properly. Will do! KIRTIS (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Cite book, Cite journal, and Cite web should cover most of your sources. Each of those pages has lots of documentation. I copy and paste from the most commonly used parameters all the time. Jonathunder (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I just cleaned up the first six cites. How am I doing? KIRTIS (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Meetup

You may find this event of interest. I will try to be there. Jonathunder (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to a
Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup
	Saturday, December 17, 2016
	Meet in the MIA Main Lobby at 1 p.m.
	2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis

Reference errors on 19 December

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

• On the Liebenberg and Kaplan page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi KIRTIS. I think the reference the bot is referring to is number 9. For some reason it is formatted using "ref name", but I cannot find the any other reference citing the same source. I was going to clean it up it, but the page you've cited does not make any mention of the firm at all, so I'm not sure how to best fix it. Besides it's possible, I mucked things up when I edited the article, but I couldn't find exactly where. Anyway, this kind of thing happens all the time, and the bot is just doing its job. No big deal and we'll figure out how to fix it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I'll try to figure this out this morning. KIRTIS (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

Hi KIRTIS. I'm just curious if you're working on your edits off-wiki and then just copying and pasting them into the edit window. That's fine and the only reason I'm asking is because I noticed the markup for apostrophes is using "em" spacing, but the default for the edit window (I think) is "en" spacing. Also, some of punctuation marks are being included within the closing quotes, whereas we try to follow MOS:LQ on Wikipedia. None of this is really a big deal as long as you're not copying and pasting content from sources directly into articles, but just your own work from your off-Wikipedia notes, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, I originally wrote the article in Word and then moved it to my sandbox. I noticed that someone (or a bot?) changed the quotation marks from "smart quotes" to "straight quotes." I will look at the apostrophes; thanks for pointing that out. And I'll make sure the punctuation is within closing quotes, too. Thanks.KIRTIS (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Just for reference, Wikipedia's MOS (Manual of Style) prefers that editors do not use curly quotes per MOS:CURLY and that editors use logical quotation style per MOS:LQ. Lots of things in the MOS might seem "wrong" to an experienced writer, but I think it's attempt to make Wikipedia more accessible to different national varieties of English and not be dominated by one particular variety. There might also be techinical reasons for certain things designed to make articles easy to read on all different kinds of devices. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks!KIRTIS (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the MOS! This will be really useful going forward. I suppose I should have located it myself but I didn't realize this resource was available. There's so much more to Wiki than meets the eye, and I still do have a lot to learn.KIRTIS (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jack Liebenberg.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Liebenberg.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Liebenberg and Kaplan

Hello! Your submission of Liebenberg and Kaplan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) and Liebenberg and Kaplan copyright problems

Hi KIRTIS. I am Diannaa, and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have located some material in the above two articles that appears to have been copied from http://www.pvnworks.com/blog/2016/9/26/historic-terrace-theatre, a copyright web page. I have cleaned both of these articles and will be doing revision-deletion soon to hide the copyright material in the article histories. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. Let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this. This afternoon I printed out the PVN blog with the intention of going through to find copied text. I did draw on that page heavily when I first started writing the article, before I located other sources. I should have gone back to rephrase as needed. I appreciate that you have done this for me. I will review your changes and perhaps reinsert some info in my own words if I feel it is important to retain. Thanks again. KIRTIS (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Liebenberg and Kaplan

On 15 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liebenberg and Kaplan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when first established, the architectural firm Liebenberg and Kaplan was met with antisemitism in the Minneapolis business community? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liebenberg and Kaplan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Liebenberg and Kaplan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from sandbox

Hi KIRTIS. First of all, kudos to you and Jonathunder for getting a DYK for Liebenberg and Kaplan. It's pretty hard to create any article from scratch, let alone one that eventually shows up on the main page. Just in case you didn't know, you can add a Template:DYK user topicon to your user page if you like. Some editors like to add top icons to the user pages in the same way that pilots would have something painted on their planes to record enemy kills. Just kind of a fun way to keep score on Wikipedia, if you're into that kind of thing.

Anyway, I don't think you need the redirects from your sandbox to the L&K article and the L&K talk page anymore. I'm pretty sure you that enough time has passed so that you can remove these now by just deleting them, but perhaps Jonthunder can clarify this since he is the edit who created the redirect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Marchjuly. I appreciate your comments and all your help along they way. KIRTIS (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw you added the DYK template to your page, but I think there's something wrong with the mark-up so you might want to check it. You can use Symbol question.svg for the icon parameter or just leave it blank, but you should delete "Optional name of image file for icon; see below" because the template thinks that's the name of a file which is why it is appearing in read text. You should also only use "2017-01-15" and don't need DYK for the date parameter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't try tooting my own horn ((u|Marchjuly}}. I made several attempts at fixing it but now the text is not showing up at all. Oh well. KIRTIS (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is really not supposed to be any text for a top icon. If you hover over the icon or click on it, it will show/take you to the article. You can if you want also add information about the DYK to your userpage as a bullet list as part of a special section. Lots of editors add information about their Wikipedia activities to their userpages per WP:UPYES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks. It was odd that it showed up (briefly) in red text at the top. I'm satisfied with the question mark icon for now.KIRTIS (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure, but the template appears to use a syntax which links file to the article, so that when the icon is clicked it takes the reader to the article and when the icon is hovered over it shows the name of the target link for the image. So, if no file with that name exists, the template is not sure what to do and apprarently uses boilerplate text like "This user helped get "Liebenberg and Kaplan" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 2017-01-15 WP:DYK." instead for the file's name and treats the file itself as a red link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liebenberg and Kaplan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Granada Theater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Cropped photo

I used a photo in the article "Liebenberg and Kaplan" that is licensed under Creative Commons, but I cropped it and uploaded it from my computer and credited the original source. Is this OK?

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Terrace Mall site plan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Terrace Mall site plan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)