User talk:Megaraptor12345

Thanks for creating Acridoxena, Megaraptor12345!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that WikiSpecies, as a user generated site, is not considered a reliable source.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

File:Acridoxena hewiana 4.jpg

You licensed this as GFDL, Would it also be possible to re-license it as Creative Commons Share Alike?

It would also be helpful; if you could confirm you are in fact Martin Goss :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Acridoxena hewiana 4.jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.martingoss.co.uk/Crickets_gallery.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Megaraptor12345,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Steve Hopkin (Scientist) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at List_of_Theraphosidae_species - the red entries have no article yet. For example the Brazilian Blue Green Pinktoe.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Rich! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missionedit was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:Megaraptor12345/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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Megaraptor12345, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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 Draft:Steve Hopkin 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wia /tlk 23:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neanura muscorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Furca. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DPL bot! I did not even know! I will go and fix it now!Megaraptor12345 (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited and fixed! Thanks again bot! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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 Draft:Steve Hopkin 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Megaraptor12345. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

smileguy91talk - contribs 18:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Neoheterophrictus bhori, Megaraptor12345!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please use complete citations (author, publication, etc). not simply bare urls.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sason robustum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the articles you've created on spiders!

For the authority for the scientific name, it's best to use a secondary source (as recommended by WP:RS); for spiders the most reliable is the World Spider Catalog. Search for the species name here. The reference for a species will look like:

• <ref name=WSC_sID>{{citation |title=Taxon details ''GENUS SPECIES'' AUTH |work=World Spider Catalog |publisher=Natural History Museum Bern |url=http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/species/ID |accessdate=DATE }}</ref>

where ID, GENUS, SPECIES, AUTH and DATE are replaced by appropriate values.

What variety of English (see WP:ENGVAR) do you use? I ask because this should be consistent, and I saw that you wrote "colourful" (British) and "colors" (American) at Typhochlaena amma. I changed "colourful" to "colorful", but maybe I should have changed "colors" to "colours" (which, being British, I would prefer).

If I can ever help in any way, leave me a message on my talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter coxhead! I actually use British English; I accidently used "colors". But do not worry, I will change it myself. And yes, I do use WSC as nearly all my sources, except for some, which come mainly from a website called Tarantupedia, but for the descriptions I must use the scientific descriptions on the WSC references, as without those descriptions the page would be very dull, e.g. "(Spider name here) is a tarantula. It is native to New Zealand." Megaraptor12345 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tarantupedia seems to be quite good, it probably would not be accepted by Wikipedia purists as meeting the standards of WP:RS, so if possible you should "look beyond" it, i.e. use it to find the sources it uses for its information and reference those.

Another point I would make is that the latest genome-based phylogenetic research (e.g. this) says that most of the families of mygalomorph spiders are not monophyletic, so we can expect some major changes in the next few years. One of the advantages of using the "automated taxobox system" (e.g. {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}}) is that it will be easy to change all the taxobox for a genus and its species from one family to another by changing one template page. So it may be worth your learning how to use these templates rather than "plain" taxoboxes. The automated taxobox system is widely used in spider articles. See Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/intro for an introduction. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Typhochlaena paschoali, Megaraptor12345!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

All taxon articles should have a {{Taxobox}} (or {{Automatic taxobox}}). Also, do not use bare urls for references: those are just addresses to sources, not sources themselves (equivalent to providing a library address and a specific shelf location for a book, but giving no clue as to the the book itself). Bare urls are prone to Link rot if the website changes. See WP:CITE & Help:Referencing for beginners for more.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Paraphrasing Another important point I can perhaps make about Wikipedia editing from this article is that you need to watch out for copyright problems. In this case the Zookeys article is marked as "CC-BY", which means that it's ok to copy the text, provided that it is attributed. In other cases the fact that the text beginning "The specific name is a patronym ..." is word-for-word the same as the article would be wrong. I would still recommend paraphrasing, though.

I'm happy to fix bare URLs; they are much better than no references at all! However, it will be helpful if you learn how to avoid repeating a reference. What you need to do is:

1. The first time you use a reference, give it a name like this <ref name=NAME>REF DETAILS</ref>, where NAME is any unique string of letters and numbers.
2. Then when you use the same reference again, just put <ref name=NAME/> – don't forget the "/" which I'm always doing!

Please don't let any of these comments put you off creating articles, which is the most useful activity. They can always be fixed up afterwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bacillochilus xenostridulans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinneret. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DPL Bot! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mascaraneus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coxa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the wikilink you added to Typhochlaena, namely ([[Spinneret (spider)|spinneret]]). I didn't know about this article, and have instead been using [[Spider anatomy#Spinnerets|spinneret]].

I wondered if I'm alone in thinking that it would be useful to have a "standard" set of wikilinks for all spider anatomical terms, perhaps added to WP:SPIDERS/Resources. Any thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I agree on that. Not only because it would be very useful in editing (because I use a lot of terms that are rarely heard); but also because it could provide interesting information about things such as the rastellum, which is currently without a page. But there is a problem: sources. Sticking with the rastellum example, things like this are considered "boring" and I can find no very reliable sources on such things, and doesn't some page say that if something has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it? On the other hand, I am rubbish at finding sources, as I'm sure you know, so there may well be reliable sources out there. Personally, I agree completely and want those sort of articles, so I will do whatever I can to help. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right – sources are a problem. I regularly read some scientific source needed for an article and find it uses terms I don't know and aren't explained. It was reading such a paper that encouraged me to write Palpal bulb. There doesn't seem to be a textbook on spider anatomy at the right level – or at least if there is, I don't know of it. Some more thought needed... Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you weren't aware, but when a group of animals has a single subgroup, e.g. a genus has a single species, we only create one article. This is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles, where the relevant bit is: "In cases where a group only contains a single subgroup, the two should not be separated ... for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used [as the article title] since it is included in the binomial nomenclature." So I merged "Mascaraneus remotus" into Mascaraneus.

By the way, you had written "It is the monotypic species of Mascaraneus ...", but in this context "monotypic" means "has only one subordinate member", so it's the genus that is monotypic as it has only one species (more precisely it's monospecific). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter!Megaraptor12345 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got an automated Wikipedia message saying you'd left a message on my talk page today, but it's not there and not in the page history either. Very odd. So if you did leave me a message, could you please try again? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask you something, but you see whilst I was editing I thought what I was saying was not really worth saying, so I left the page unsaved but Wikipedia must have automatically sent you that message you received. Sorry for your inconvenience! But actually I've changed my mind, so I will ask you that question. Wikipedia also sent me an automated message saying you had thanked me, for an unreferenced edit in the article Annandaliella travancorica, which I thought you would be angry about, not pleased. But do note I am not complaining, just curious. Thanks and sorry again. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replied to your query on my talk page. Re Annandaliella travancorica, I wasn't sure that I'd understood what you wrote at first "The male only lacks any stridulating hairs..." The "only" confused me: did you mean "Only the male lacks any stridulating hairs (but the female has them)" or "The male has hairs but only lacks stridulating ones"? So your second edit clarified what was meant, hence the thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making it clear, Peter! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Typhochlaena seladonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Selenogyrus aureus, Megaraptor12345!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Talk page will need to be created. MB298 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for creating Selenogyrus austini, Megaraptor12345!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that it is unnecessary to include "date retrieved" for printed sources like books or journals, since the content of a book edition never changes. Only on websites is it useful, as information can change without notice.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Re a recent edit you made: actually in many spider families, subfamilies are not currently important, since their boundaries are unclear. The problem is complicated by the fact that some subfamilies within a family are well-defined, whereas others are not, so any attempt to divide a family up consistently is at present doubtful. For Theraphosidae, see e.g. Guadanucci, J.P.L. (2014), "Theraphosidae phylogeny: relationships of the 'Ischnocolinae' genera (Araneae, Mygalomorphae)", Zoologica Scripta, 43 (5): 508–518, doi:10.1111/zsc.12065.

The other problem is that if the taxobox displays a subfamily, as Tmesiphantes did after your edit to Template:Taxonomy/Tmesiphantes, this needs to be sourced in the article. Since the World Spider Catalog doesn't use subfamilies, this means adding a Taxonomy section to the article with a separate explicit up-to-date reference supporting the subfamily. Without such a source, the subfamily is unsourced.

Your change to Template:Taxonomy/Tmesiphantes meant that the source given did not support the placement, so if you really want to show the subfamily in the automated taxobox, you need either to remove the WSC ref or (better) replace it with one supporting the subfamily. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, subfamilies are not important taxonomically, but when I was a new comer to the group, I found subfamilies made the Theraphosidae easier to understand... Not sure if this is a good reason for adding subfamilies (:

I added sources to both articles, and thank you alerting me to the problem; I most definitely wouldn't have noticed otherwise!Megaraptor12345 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (By the way, sorry for the delay in replying; my internet connection is bad and homework and the like had to be done)[reply]

Thanks for providing the reference. I suggest using it as I've done now at Tmesiphantes. My reasoning is:

• WP:WPNOTRS strongly prefers secondary or tertiary sources. The World Spider Catalog is clearly a secondary (or even a tertiary source), since its editors review other sources to create the database. So where possible, e.g. for the authority for a name, it's better to use the WSC and avoid possible challenges from other editors over the use of primary sources.
• Unfortunately, at present there aren't reliable secondary sources for subfamilies, superfamilies, etc. So we are forced to use primary ones. In which case, it's better to put the information in the article as well as in the taxobox, and then you can put the reference directly afterwards.

Spider taxonomy is very tricky at present: it changes rapidly in my experience, and even family placements are sometimes doubtful.

Anyway, keep up the good work – we need more spider editors! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of arachnology terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Augacephalus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinneret. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I started editing spider articles, rather than plant ones, I looked for some guidance on the ordering of sections. (For plants, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template.) There doesn't seem to be one. So I looked at the FA/GA articles for spiders and arthropods, such as Redback spider. These suggested to me that the consensus among the few top-rated spider articles is to have the order:

• Taxonomy and naming (or Taxonomy and etymology or just Taxonomy)
• Description (or Morphology or Anatomy, etc.)
• Behavior/Behaviour (or Biology or Natural history, etc.)
• Distribution and habitat
• Others as required

Personally, I prefer the WP:PLANTS order, i.e. Description first, since I think that most readers want first of all to know what the animal looks like, so if I create a new article, I tend to reverse the order of the first two sections. In support of this, if you look at other Featured Articles for other arthropod groups, such as Homarus gammarus, Taxonomy is often put last. This works for species articles, but not for genus articles, because to discuss the distribution, for example, you usually need to know what species there are.

What do you think?

(Minor point: the English Wikipedia doesn't use "title case" in section titles, so it's "Distribution and habitat" not "Distribution and Habitat" – not my preference, but it's what the Manual of Style says.)

Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I never thought about that! I usually just pop the sections in in a fashion I've seen done before i.e. taxonomy first, then description, etc. I think the arrangement in Homarus gammarus is really nice and clear, and I like how the biology (or life cycle or whatever) is near the top, as I like to know the behaviour and description of an animal before I learn any thing else. I'll use this for my new article, Augacephalus breyeri. Thanks for telling me, Megaraptor12345 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that, for species articles, the Homarus gammarus ordering works well, although I've tended to use the Redback spider ordering so far, just because it was a spider article. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Augacephalus breyeri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apophysis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meiothermus timidus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerobic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Megaraptor12345. 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]

Material you included in several articles appears to have been copied from the copyright web page https://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/4100/59_1_Gerken.pdf. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Megaraptor12345. 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)[reply]