User talk:Crispness

I have nominated Wikipedia:BRIT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Waggers (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Glad SOMEBODY has a sense of humour LOL ;) The Thunderer (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the proposal to non-bold, if it's hard to read as bold - I've deleted the non-bold duplication. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. I hope you don't mind if I reply on my talk page. Kanguole (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

It's difficult to remember, these days. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I believe it, I'm cool. I'll have to let others decide as to whether my Keep is valid or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a risk I take for approaching Wikipedia as NPOVish as I can. What happens to GoodDay? is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I have also warned Matt, but I suggest you might want to cool down a bit, no matter how persistent Matt becomes. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same final warning as Matt. This is your final warn - one more revert and you'll be blocked - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you signed up as a participant in this task force. I'm not sure if you are still an active editor or not, but this is just a note to let you know that the Task Force will shortly become active once more. Your participation is welcome. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Newchapel, Surrey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOCITE

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]