User talk:Elembis

Elembis is awarded this Minor Barnstar for cleaning up the Ocean's Twelve article. -- Nataly a 10:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me to discuss permissions for your image on Natural Selection

Hi Elembis, please e-mail me asap on m.pallen@ bham.ac.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpallen (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a name for people like you

Hi there. I stumbled across your user page and read that you contribute mostly mechanical edits, such correcting grammar and the like. Most of my edits are along those lines as well. Apparently, we're both WikiGnomes! --Impaciente 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Rationalists

Thanks for your good work; catagorization of rationalists and rationalist organizations.--Pinaki ghosh 14:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward

Hi I was interested in your edit on the weaselish paragraph on John Edward, where do you start with citation on an issue like Edward, type in "John Edward" and Fraud on google and you get huge amounts of results, there are too many to quantify. He has also been lampooned on a variety of shows, these are fact not speculation, I believe the editing of these facts is non NPOV.Belbo Casaubon 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: User talk:Belbo Casaubon#John Edward.

Original message: User talk:Belbo Casaubon#John Edward 2.

I am sorry that you found my response at Talk:John_Edward#Pro_Edward_POV uncivil, however I note that your response again points to Rules and Guidelines, I find your approach disrespectful, and borderline Passive Aggressive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belbo Casaubon (talk • contribs) 13:12, January 2, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Elembis, I see you've been fighting a one-man battle on the WP:WTA front for the John Edward article. I took some time off for the holidays, but I'll be back editing tomorrow. Just to let you know support is on it's way! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to avoid "fighting" in any "battle", of course, but I do forward to the issue being settled one way or another, hopefully at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium" or, if that section doesn't gather responses which help us reach a consensus, a request for comment. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the holidays! — Elembis 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The holidays were great! I'm still recovering! I think the WTA guideline is very clear about the use of "claims" or "purported", that they should be avoided because they add bias to an article:

“These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.”

“[purportedly] should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.” (The "alleger" in this case is who's doing the doubting, not the one making claims")

Articles like the one on John Edward are exactly the reason this guideline was created in the first place, to stop editors from using such loaded words to add bias to an article. From what I see so far, the opposing editors who want to add "purported" or whatnot are actually misreading the guideline and "cherry-picking" parts of it to try and back their views. It's just wrong. But then again, maybe I'm wrong - but it just doesn't look like I am. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thanks for putting that in. I was actually hoping Belbo would do it, it's a good learning experience for a new editor. I've already agreed on the mediation page. I also appreciate your attempts to mediate, but I felt official mediator involvement would be better - at least to help me accept it if I'm wrong... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being involved. I always appreciate your comments and your civility, even when we disagree (and even when you're wrong ;)). — Elembis 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whaa? Me wrong? Nevah! I just allow others to win to make them feel better about themselves... :) Hey, it's good to work with you Elembis, you're very civil and fair yourself...even, ah, on that oh-so-rare occasion we disagree... and thanks for the kind comments. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skunk ape

Thanks for cleaning up one of the worst cryptozoological articles I've seen! Totnesmartin 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zammit

I quite agree with you on the Mediumship article entry for Victor Zammit, the only reason I left it was because it was a nice counterpoint to the JREF "million dollar prize." The Zammit entry is also in the Medium (spirituality) article, you may want to tag that one too. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I should perhaps have removed the material entirely, but it may be better for other editors to have a shot at fixing it first. Thanks for the heads-up! — Elembis 05:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I too think it's the best idea to add the {{fact}} tag if possible, helps to spare the feelings of the editor who put the uncited information there and nip bad feelings in the bud - which fits the reasoning in the second paragraph of WP:V#burden of evidence. Nice job.Dreadlocke ☥ 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment

See: User talk:Merzul#Argument from nonbelief

The timing was excellent... I have spent a lot of time today arguing on a talk pages about very irrelevant issues. Your comment really reminded me where I should focus my efforts. Thank you! --Merzul 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randi and Zammit

Oh, sorry about putting your signature on that. Just looked like a bunch of code to me. My point in putting in the citation request, and in putting the same supercilious ("factual") phrase "To date, no one has passed the challenge" on the Zammit one, was just that these are not genuine objections to the reality, or unreality, of paranormal phenomena. Randi's done a lot of good in putting the frauds on the run, but at the same time, in a more serious debate such as an encyclopedia, I'm not sure that the challenge, as opposed to Randi's other work, deserves mention. But if you really think we have to have them, let's give them equal footing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you

Thank you for the CSS help on my signiture. If you're interested, check out my Sandbox. Some contributions, comments, examples, or ideas would be appreciated.

Ali Karbassi

View my contribs and talk pages.

06:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Couch of Power

Original message: User talk:Shuffdog#Couch of Power

Hi, you bring up a good point. I'd seen the game played in several youth activity settings, but I've never looked it up to see if it was already in a book that I could cite. Similarly, I'd pulled knowledge from memory about the games Mao (game) and Assassin - aha, I see. There is an 'unverified research' tag on the Assassin page as well.

Wait. There are 3 sources on the Couch of Power page, now. Does something else need sourced, do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shuffdog (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's adequately sourced now, but if you come across any better sources it would be great to have them. — Elembis (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind briefly weighing in on "psychic"

See this edit

You were correct to move my {{totally-disputed}} tag to the scientific views. It would be appreciated if you weighed in to support my edit.

i removed a line, "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science." This is an extraordinary claim that the scientific community is split over the existence of psychics. It is backed by absolutely zero evidence. (1) This runs afoul of WP unsourced statement rules and (2) It's completely bogus. There is no psychic faculty at Stanford, MIT, Harvard etc... (3) The existence of some parapsychological association with several dozen members running around doesn't create a controversy. Evolution isn't controversial within the biological sciences and there are a LOT more than 30 creationists running around. -- Mgunn 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward photo

See: Image:EdwardFace.jpg

Where do you suppose that photo is from? Looks like a publicity photo from his website: [1]. If we can't use it, I can scan one of his book cover photos, that's covered under fair use (sorry for the pun...completely unintentional...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A scanned promotional image from a book would be a nice substitute if the current publicity photo is deleted. However, since a fair use image must be included in an article for it to remain on Wikipedia, you might want to wait until the current image is deleted (if it is deleted) so there will be a void for the scanned image to fill. — Elembis (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent logic. I'll await the outcome before scanning and uploading. Since the current photo is a publicity shot, it should be no problem to keep - but how does one prove it's a publicity photo? His site has the usual copyright blurb...Dreadlocke ☥ 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they're attacking all the Edward photos:[2] Dreadlocke ☥ 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all you need do is fill in the info here: [3]. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use the Fair Use: Promotional Material tag for the Edward images? Maybe we should also look into getting a press pack from Edward's publicity folks. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Just fyi, I've indicated that I'm ready to rumble on the mediation: User_talk:^demon#John_Edward_mediation. I'm not comfortable editing the mediation request hold, since it's under the Decision of the Mediation Committee section. I'm also a little unclear on why one of the other editors seems so desperate to edit that one sentence post-mediation, or perhaps he doesn't understand that he can edit the rest of the article while this mediation (of esssentially one word) is going on, or on hold. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death

Thanks for the explanation! If the reason for removal was indeed, MOS:DATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death, then it should have been moved instead of being re-moved...or at least an edit summary explanation! Nice work, you're handy to have around! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Edward pic

Are you just awaiting the OTRS ticket number for this photo: [4]. The face photo has been deleted, and I'm not sure why that one lapsed, but I'd like to make sure this one doesn't follow. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic

See edits [5] and [6]

Sorry I accused you of being patronizing. I was at the time under the impression that they were trying to put all things psychic under the category of "Purported." Anyway, I was steamed, and should have AGFed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, but none is necessary. It's often hard to tell what is a patronizing message and what isn't, so don't worry about it. =) — Elembis (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Men's Morris

On my browser (IE7), the graphics cover up parts of the text. Can this be fixed? OneWeirdDude 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics & EP

Hi there, you recently redirected Ethics and evolutionary psychology. I may gotten mixed up, but I thought there was a significant content on that page, including a list of further reading, and some discussion on the talk page. I can't see any of this now, on the redirect page or the target page. Can you help clarify at all? EverSince 10:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: User talk:EverSince#Ethics and evolutionary psychology

Thanks for your reply (not sure whether to reply there or here). I'm glad you saved a copy of the article - at some point I'll transfer some stuff from there to the evolutionary ethics article (which I agree is probably the better title, if more potential confusion with eugenics-type views). Assuming that you don't disagree that some of the issues and books are directly on the topic... (despite how that main pro-deletion person seems to have been portraying things). I'm annoyed I didn't notice any of this deletion debate going on, despite the page being on my watchlist and the deletion tag having been added. Be curious to know if there were comments made on the talk page because, having previously quickly rewritten the article from when it had REALLY bizarre content, I'd asked for opinions on the suitability of the page title but no reply for a while. EverSince 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks!

I only now noticed that you reverted Belbo's removal of my barnstar back in December, and talked to him about it. Thank you very much! He got blocked for NPA, and I was just reading through his talk page to see what other "interactions" he has had with other editors, and saw your comments! Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface normal

Thank you for the nice picture at that article. I have a request however. Could you make the indices "1" and "2" be a bit larger? They are rather hard to see in the current plot. Thanks! You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (see commons:Image:Normal_vectors.svg). The change won't appear on Surface normal until the servers re-render the image at regular thumbnail sizes, but previewing an edit which gives the image an unusual width (like 301px) shows the difference. Thanks for the suggestion! — Elembis (talk · contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But waiting for the server to re-render it is kind of annoying. I tweaked it in Inkscape myself, and added it as Image:Normal vectors2.svg (with bigger arrows and italic text). I also removed the "p" text since I think it is clear enough that we have a polygon in there. I hope you don't mind my tweaks. Please feel free to put your original version at surface normal if you do. Thank you for the nice picture. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignosticism refs

Thank you for assuming good faith when you reverted my last edit to Ignosticism. I was trying to make it better, but I had not yet read the policy that you showed me in the edit summary. Thank you, and, now, I know, and this will keep me from doing again to any other article. Happy Wikying! hmwith talk 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:John Edward awarded on South Park.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:John Edward awarded on South Park.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Watch37264 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new task force

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Hi Elembis,
I'm looking at the combination of science and politics edits in you contribution history...I hope you will be interested in the new task force several editors have started. Please come by and take a look--we'd love to have you on board!
Cyrusc 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image translation

Could I translate Image:Mutation and selection diagram.svg in Chinese? --gateway 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, as long as your image is released under the GPL as well, as the license for Image:Mutation and selection diagram.svg requires. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:American Atheists logo.svg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:American Atheists logo.svg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Ethernet crossover cable are hard to find

In Source regarding crossover cables between old switches you asked for a citation regarding certain equipment and cable related incompatibilities, and requested the courtesy of a reply.

I replied as some length there - but in summary it said:

Some things are known, absolutely verifiable facts.
The absence of that knowledge may cause someone else grief.
Unfortunately, though it may be well known by subject matter experts in that community, it has never been reduced to writing, or if it has - the sources are out of print and/or not available by the most diligent of web searches. (The SME's may consider it too "obvious" to need reduction to writing, or "if you don't know that, you shouldn't be doing this..." etc.)
Given the above, do we let other people who need this knowledge just "squirm on the line" (while the SME's laugh), or do we help them, even though the material may not be citable?

Jharris1993 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:John_Edward_awarded_on_South_Park.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Edward_awarded_on_South_Park.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The End of the Ring Wars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The End of the Ring Wars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unicursal Hexagram

Greetings. I saw the SVG Unicursal Hexagram that you created, and I wonder if I might get one of higher resolution from you? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. --Thiebes (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: User talk:Thiebes#SVG unicursal hexagram images

Fair use rationale for File:American Atheists logo.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American Atheists logo.svg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DuDE!!

YOU SEEN THE SKUNK APE?!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.50.60 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Edward awarded on South Park.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Edward awarded on South Park.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Myakka skunk ape 2.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Myakka skunk ape 2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chick Bowen 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for the dove image. We're going to use it in a project to collect funds for the UNHCR. Stephane87420 (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Dove image

Hi, Thanks for the dove image about peace. We're going to use it in a projet to collect funds for UNHCR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephane87420 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 February 2014 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elembis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elembis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Elembis. 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)[reply]

Book about Yoté

Hello. First, thanks for creating the page about Yoté. I noticed that when you created it, you cited 1975 book "Games of the World". I'm researching Yoté, and I'd like to know if you still have access to that book. I want to know exactly what it says about the game, and what sources it cites. If you still own the book, please message me. Thank you! Mateussf (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to this book anymore. Sorry! — Elembis (talk · contribs) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The End of the Ring Wars.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The End of the Ring Wars.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]