User talk:Sigil7

You undid an edition to the shortbus page (external link) while you have not even followed this link, nor discussed it on the discussion page. This is agianst the wiki etiquette. - User: Wiel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.247.58 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did too follow that external link, I also removed it again, and this time put in talk page the reason why. There are already plenty of reviews on this movie from professional websites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, etc. A link to your personal blog is not notable, nor does it add anything to the article.Sigil7 (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the belated welcome. Today's 24 hours 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Chittister

I've warned User:Msbpr about their possible violation of the 3RR rule. If Msbpr reverts the article again go to this page and follow the instructions on it to get the attention of an admin.

By the way, please don't remove content from your talk page. If you feel its getting long for your liking, you can move it into an archive. --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, Msbpr isn't technically violating the 3RR rule because there has to be three reverts in a period of 24 hours. All though I wonder if this is an exception because of how long its been going on. --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dtbohrer: if you look at his/her contributions page, you'll see this is a consistent theme on Joan Chittester's page and Christine Vladimiroff's. This user has been warned again and again, something needs to be done. I'm not going to revert any more of Msbpr's reverts in the meantime, not going to get involved in this warring anymore. This user has not provided any discussion on the talk page nor anything (besides Msbpr's own supposed authority as Chittester's secretary) to back up her claims.Sigil7 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment on their talk page asking for some type verifible source to disprove what is written there. So we'll see what happens. --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 03:22, 7 July 2007 (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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]