User talk:Rholton

For older content, see:

• User talk:Rholton/archive01
• User talk:Rholton/archive02
• User talk:Rholton/archive03

Are you anti-Catholic?

I noticed you recently deleted an article about an anti-Pope in the Catholic Church. I was wondering if it was because of any anti-Catholic sentiments that you might have? If not, I do apologize. (posted by user:RichardMarcJ 22:30, February 11, 2006)

No. I am not anti-Catholic. I don't recall the particular article in question, but I don't delete articles based on my personal beliefs anyway. If I deleted the article without an AFD vote, it must have appeared to me to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. -Rholton 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple CMS

Hi Rholton, I read your question about a CMS for your community. I spent many months last year going into the available open source systems, and there are two which attracted me the most:

[CMSimple] - really simple, with most of the commonly required plugin functions available.

[Joomla] - more versatile but much more to learn and "administrate". Can be kept very basic, or expanded to a large commercial size undertaking. You will probably find templates that suit your purpose, ready-made, and there is an enthusiastic and helpful (and very large!) support community.

Joomla can do streaming audio/video, I'm not sure about CMSimple. If you are looking to expend in the future, Joomla would be my recommendation, but it has a longer learning curve than CMSimple. I hope this helps --Seejyb 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pavlos Hatzipantelidis

Thanks with that. — Κaiba 02:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion

Mr. Rholton,

I found the section above about reversion titled FELA KUTI appropriate to my situation where you deleted my new article on Alan Scott Kaufman. The deletion was done so quickly you couldn't have had time to read any articles referenced therein. Surely you could have discussed with me any concerns or offered advice before the instant deletion.

AlanSKaufman 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I echo this with regards to William O. Eareckson. You allowed a grand total of 4 yes FOUR minutes from my creating the article to putting on a speedy deletion notice. This is not reasonable. Nickhk 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Services

  Thanks for the hint to use my user page to develop the content.
  User:Pet-ro/Dylan Service Framework

  (Oh:  I now understand the move command in the wiki better )

  If you like you can delet the old page Dylan services.
  Maybe I in the next time publish this a subpage of Dylan programming languages.

  Greetings, pet-ro

thanks

for fixing the bold title on special needs. Hello as well. cpswarrior 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

National Myth. Thanks

Thanks for National Myth correction. vkvora 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

re:your vandalism in Plymouth Brethren article

I spend many time and money,adding needed citations and sources there,and you deleted it?. How an article must to be written according you?. If it hadn`t sources you delete it,if it is original reaserach you claims Wikipedia is no the place for it;if it had links you call it excessives and delete it. Stop now your vandalism or you will be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliecer (talk • contribs)

Misspelling redirects

Hi, I just wanted to say nice work fixing the links to redirects from misspellings. Keep it up! Wmahan. 02:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fondón

Will you add {{R from alternate name}} to these redirects? User:Emijrp/Almería User:Emijrp/Cádiz User:Emijrp/Huelva, I think that it is unnecessary. --Emijrp 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean that in those tables there are a lot of redirects, then why to put {{R from alternate name}} in Fondón, Spain and not in Serón, Spain, Vélez-Blanco, Spain, and many many more....? --Emijrp 12:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is that, "will someone use that huge categories?" I'm not sure, but happy job!. I have seen that articles in Category:Redirects to Wiktionary dont use {wi} template, then it counts as a valid article. What about this? --Emijrp 12:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When an article uses more than one line, it is a real article, then {NUMBEROFARTICLES} rises. All that articles with {subst:wi} template is overloading that variable, do you understand? It's a small problem, but if those articles are going to stay in Wikipedia, they must use {wi} and not {subst:wi}. Cheers. --Emijrp 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

my name

The guidelines suggest a note sent to me first, explaining the cause for your alarm at my handle, unless of course it's just plain obvious, I guess. I think you are mistaken, and could take a moment to exaplain, but you need to voice some specific cause for offense. "Sounds like something offensive" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, but if you have a bone to pick with category theory, for example, I'm interested to hear it! :) happy regulating. MotherFunctor 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Vandlism

I'm sorry I reverted an edit that was not vandalism but did not help the page either. I probably saw it using VandalProof and did not want to go through the hassle of reverting it manually. I guess I'll log it as a mistake.Gdo01 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ..

.. for your endorsement of my Board candidacy. I especially appreciate your comment, though I must confess that I don't remember what we disagreed about in the past.--Eloquence* 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We disagreed over whether a particular image of Nick Berg's execution should appear on the Main Page, or rather, over how we should determine when such images should appear. This was a mailing list conversation. Unless I've got you confused with someone else, in which case maybe you'd better not say...;) –RHolton≡– 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like the kind of thing I would comment on, though I'm slightly worried my position today might be completely different ..--Eloquence* 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proofreading

Thanks for the good job at fixing mistakes in the Vincent van Gogh article. Stumps 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference to this article

It is true, even if it is sickening to think about. Hope this clears up everything! Arbiteroftruth 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that article, and the guy had his you-know-what cut off after he walked into a trap that was set up by some thief. I don't find that comforting either. I think I will spare you the rest of the details. Arbiteroftruth 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User Gene Nygaard

Gene Nygaard appears to be on a strange mission to remove all accent marks and other non-English punctuation from Wikipedia. His behavior seems rather abrasive, too, as can be seen from his talk page. This may explain his seemingly irrational comments in the talk sections of 1181 Lilith and 7796 Jaracimrman. Apparently, he opposes renaming 1181 Lilith simply because he is not getting his way when he wants to rename articles.

Since you are an administrator, could you tell me whether his behavior (which seems more disruptive in other parts of Wikipedia) warrants action by an administrator, and if so, could you please take appropriate actions?

Thank you, George J. Bendo 08:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU Discussion

RHolton, thanks for dropping by and I really appreciate you restoring the NPOV tag. It’s a small step towards fairness, but if it survives the night then it will be a significant one, as it will easily be the most substantial edit to do so other than that made by 244 or Talkabout, since I’ve been looking in. I am not best placed to discuss the article content. I am not a member of the BK nor an ex member. However, my support for the NPOV was because others who were qualified to contest the articles content and attempted to do so, where either stonewalled by proven sockpuppets or had their comments removed from the discussion section and their citation requests pulled down. I have supplied detailed links of examples of where I saw this happening, in a 9 point reply to the user Talkabout in the Searchin Man complaint section of the Sept – Oct 2006 discussion archive. searchin man 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University"

Posting this here as it's been edited already where I originally placed it on the bkwsu discussion page by 195.82.106.244 searchin man 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Holton. It was archived. You also removed my addition. Was this intentional?

I spent some time archiving all the previous discussion, in two lots because it had become so long and mixed up [people posting at the top instead of bottom] and I am asking you allow it to be archived so that we can put the past behind us and start afresh doing exactly what you said we should. Focusing on the topic.

I am sorry but what both contributors did was continue on the slurs, allegations and non-content related dialogue - which is now fully documented in the archives as per policy. From the copy of what was written, you can see this.

If you can fault the logic of a fresh start - or if you want to remove any elements of the fresh start because they appear conentious, then please do. But give us the fresh - on topic - start.

Thank you, 195.82.106.244 10:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Holton, I chose not to engage in the previous slurs. If you look back at the archives, you will see that I added I think it was close to 25 citations answering all the points that had been raised which had not been addressed, merely buried in the usual slur and allegations which you allow.

They are still archived, here; [1]. There are many references included in the article and discussion pages which he has obviously not checked. I then went back and added another just a few days ago. So if I responded to his slur, a) do you allow that b) does it not present a NPOV/continuation itself?

searchin man states he is not a BK to you and yet elsewhere he states that he has been associated for 5 years and recommended or many people to them, his upset being that a recent recommendee had been put off by this Wiki topic. That would not appear to be honest or unbiased.

I wanted to entirely avoid getting back into that cycle of allegation and counter allegation by archiving all previous discussion but it has to go both ways.

I suggest that you accept any contentious or prejudicial discussion is archived where it is less likely to cause offense, draw the line to the past, and start on a clean slate and that you too join in the discussion page. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked and the Nine points have nothing to do with actual content.

We are going to have problems Mr Holton because you have admin status to throw around but your opening comments are factually inaccurate. The BKWSU was not founded in 1937, the precursor Om Mandali was. World Renewal Trust followed. The "University" is not a real university and as such not founded, it might be misleading. Additionally, the founder was not Brahma Baba but Shiva Baba. And the citation are clearly available and non-contentious. So caution please if we are to be accurate. 195.82.106.244 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rich, I agree you have used real tact and reserve but I would like you to allow the contentious comments remain in the archive, as they are, and remove the copies on the front discussion. Or I would like the opportunity to respond to them as they are prejudicial and incomplete. If I remove them I am going to be accused.

Folks seem to have got the message and settled down which is positive. I agree to a clean start without any personal digs, do not want to be dug at and agree that "digging" is not the way forward.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Holton, This note is regarding the discussion in the Talk page in Brahma Kumaris.

Questions:When a reliable source is requested and it is not offered by the editor of the article, what is an adequate amount of time to wait for a satisfactory reply (reliable source)? what should be the next step after that? Thank you.

avyakt7

Disappearing discussion archive history

I just noticed that all the discussion archives for the BKWSU article from July up to the October have had their histories blanked on 12th Oct 06. Is this normal and acceptable? I wanted to refer to something on the previous discussion but it seems to have disappeared since I first read it.

Thanks Bksimonb 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes

Hi. I removed your context tag from Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes after having completely rewritten the article. I hope that addresses the problem. Disneyfile 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP India

Hi,

If you are interested in assessing article for WikiProject India, please add yourself to the list. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 74

The standards for Interstate Highways can be found at WikiProject Interstate Highways. Abbreviated state names are used in many situations in the US roads projects. In the routeboxes, standardisation is important, and ideally, each junction should be one line in the routebox. On Interstate 95, for example, adding the state name would extend the routebox significantly. Also, in the browse boxes, abbreviated state names are used to keep the browse box size to a minimum, which is particularly necessary when the browse box is at the bottom of the routebox, such is the case on Interstate 66. The abbreviated state names in the external links section (excluding the browse boxes), was an oversight on my part, and for that I apologise. Also, from what I can find, the Manual of Style is not too helpful on state abbreviations, particularly in the abbreviations page. But I would argue that since the junctions in the routebox are listed in more detail further in the article, it's not that big of a deal. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly a decision for me to make. It would be best to bring it up on the Interstate Highways talk page, and just see what happens. Otherwise, the status quo is going to remain. That's the best I can give. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Rholton/Denis the Carthusian

I noticed that this article has a lot of links leading to it from article-space... is it something that's acceptable to move back to article space? I'm doing article⇒userspace redirect cleanup, and the redirects could potentially be speedy deleted, but if this was a sandbox article that got forgotten, it may be better to move it back to article space? --Interiot 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to ask the same thing. Since it is derived from the Catholic Encyclopedia, anyone could duplicate the work, and create an article-space version. But why duplicate the effort? Seems it has been there from 2004. There are red links such as Denis of Rykel that need this also. Charles Matthews 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I have no objection to moving this into the article-space. I created the page back in 2004, and I had no idea it was being redirected to from the article-space (something which seems to have taken place in August of 2006). Of course it needs lots of work, but that's all the more reason to put it somewhere where people will not hesitate to work on it. –RHolton≡– 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have now moved the page and fixed the double-redirects. Thanks for the promptings, Interoit and Charles. –RHolton≡– 12:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pentagrid Converter

Thank you for your comment. It least you give feedback in a mature style, unlike some of the other children.

Do you have a link to the article style you have a problem with, because I can't find it? I B Wright 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Rholton

This is to confirm that I am also commons:User:Rholton. –RHolton≡– 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Very helpful link, the one about the javascript about editing section 0... It's one of the better parts of the wiki-world, there's always something to learn. Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry about having made you delete that page that I created in idiocy. Check my talk page for an explanation. Billy go zoom 05:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Diabetes mellitus

My edit there was a total mistake. I didn't notice I was on a talk page. Thank you for catching it and reverting my edit. --Mdwyer 18:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It was apparent to me that it was a mistake. Thanks for admitting a mistake -- something not everyone is willing to do. –RHolton≡– 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Good grief, that's all it took? Even I might have gotten adminship back then. KP Botany 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Big change, huh? You tell me, has there been a change in the Wikipedia culture? –RHolton≡– 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do me a favor...

If you get the chance, would you please delete the page Marlboro Township School District, then move Marlboro Public Schools to that page? Thanks a lot! --aido2002 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Ctime

FYI, I've nominated ctime for deletion. — Loadmaster 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Loflin

Please note that the section of SAT to which the page on Trevor Loflin was merged has been deleted, and for good reason; the information on Trevor Loflin was entirely inappropriate in that article. I have nominated the article on Mr. Loflin for deletion a second time. Based on your participation either in the article on Trevor Loflin or in the previous afd, you may wish to participate in the article's present deletion discussion. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My Right To Vanish

Please Do Not Respond To This On My Page. I Asked Another Admin To Make Me Vanish Before And He Wrote That I Retired On My Talk Page. That Is All Fine And Dandy But I Would Like My History And Contributions Erased As Well, Erase Me From Wikipedia Please. Thankyou.--GorillazFan Adam 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cativolcus

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cativolcus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0643.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles of Religion (Methodist)

You were absolutely right (imho) to remove the text from the above article, and I now know about wikisource as well :-) (Yes you might ask yourself how anybody could miss it but hey I did)

I obviously added hyperlinks (see old version Articles of Religion (Methodist) to the wrong place - but would they be appropriate on the wikisource article or is that not done.

Thanks in anticipation of advice - IcarusGeek 20:17, 5 September 2007 (BST)

WikBack

Welcome to the WikBack! I've just approved your registration, and I look forward to you contributing to the boards.

If you have no idea what this is about, or if you did not register, please contact me right away as the account may have been created by an imposter.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Lifetime

Template:Lifetime has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Magioladitis (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Hi, I was just wondering why exactly you decided to remove my addition to the article for "Don't Worry Baby". Is it because the version I spoke of has not come out yet? If so, why is that grounds for deletion? Just trying to understand a little better, as I'm pretty new around here. Thanks. Pkmntrainerred (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

question about the Gens Aemilia

I'm currently making a family tree for the Julian-Claudian dynasty with over 100 names, as I want to to include some related families, too. As you noticed yourself, the gens aemilia is very confusing. In the English Wikipedia, Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus is said to have two sons, one would be the father of Varus' wife Claudia Pulchra and the other of Lucius Aemilius Paullus (consul 1) and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 6). Both are said to have the same praenomen: Lucius - isn't it totally weird to name two (surviving sons) like this? Which source says Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus had two sons and not only one as stated in the German wikipedia (de:Paullus Aemilius Lepidus). Here they also say that Claudia Pulchra wouldn't belong to the gens aemilia, but the daughter of Marcus Valerius Messalla Messallinus. Fulcher (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brian Giovannini

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not verified. All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due"" appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or self-published sources such as wikis. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date: 2003...

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edcolins (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brian Giovannini

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Giovannini, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Giovannini. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edcolins (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your attention to Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes History2007 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Rholton

Hey, Rholton. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! A request for your input

Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Arminianism The goal of WikiProject Arminianism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Arminianism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Arminianism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Arminianism, but prefers that all Arminian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lifetime

Template:Lifetime has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob^Talk 06:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Line of rulers

Template:Line of rulers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rholton. 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, Rholton. 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)

"Adlib" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Adlib. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Adlib until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing Rholton a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)